Religions

If there are to be people on this earth in future millenniums, nuclear energy is the only energy source that will serve the human race to the end of time. There are no other options. Nuclear power offers an infinite source of energy, fossil fuels are finite.

In this page I do not want to indict all religions. The Catholics, Independents, Presbyterian Reform, and Baptist, etc. do not appear to have taken a position on energy and/or lobby politicians.

Several religious organizations have taken a position about energy. An example of their position was reported in the Presbyterians News Service. They call for the discontinued use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. They think we could live like mankind did two centuries ago.

A news release below: I also believe that religions should concern themselves with saving souls rather than trying to influence constitutional matters. Do you recall Jesus ever meddling in Roman or local politics?

(At the end of this page I have listed the churches who are parties to the misguided eco-justice energy policies.)

To start I will introduce a religious based organization that does not designate saving the earth as its mantra.

As a biblically orthodox Christian organization EEN totally rejects nature worship and pantheism. Nothing is clearer in Scripture: we are to worship only the Creator - never His creation. There is only one God in three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - to whom all praise, glory, and honor are to be given. EEN's Evangelical Declaration puts it well: "Our creating God is prior to and other than creation, yet intimately involved with it, upholding each thing in its freedom, and all things in relationships of intricate complexity. God is transcendent, while lovingly sustaining each creature; and immanent, while wholly other than creation and not to be confused with it."

1. The environmental state of the world—basic principles of ecology, information about critical issues (such as global warming, ozone depletion, loss of diversity, deforestation, desertification, waste, toxic waste, and overpopulation), the human/ natural causes of these conditions, and the potential consequences of their continuation.

My comments: Over population? Go to the First Chapter of the bible starting with verse 27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them. Verse 28 God blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and increase in great numbers; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air and every thing that, lives on the ground"

Evidently David Rhoads did not read about the be fruitful and increase in great numbers. It does not seem that any of these religious organizations read it either. You will see that throughout this Web page.

I would like to add here that if we used nuclear power there would be enough energy for everyone on this earth. I can understand the environmentalists, but the religious organizations pass all understanding.

We can't use nuclear because of fear, we can't use coal because of CO2, we can't drill for our own oil because of endangered something-or-other, we can't build wind farms because they look ugly. If we really examined honestly the impact of large areas of solar collectors, we would discover a tremendous impact on plants and animals that can no longer live under the collectors because the sun is blocked. Nothing we can do is satisfactory to the theologians of this new religion, and the best thing we could possibly do is collectively cease to exist, thereby ensuring that "nature" would reign supreme. When will this nonsense stop?

It seems that the signatories to the letter below have abandoned the great commission and joined the Green's Earth First mantra. Presbyterians would do well to be more concerned about the loss of membership than the national energy policy over which they have no expertise.

NEW YORK CITY — A broad coalition of U.S. religious leaders has called for renewed action to change energy policy, criticizing some of the energy plans of President George W. Bush.

Describing fuel conservation as a "comprehensive moral value," the 39 Christian and Jewish leaders did not overtly condemn Bush's energy policy in their open letter entitled "Let There Be Light: Energy Conservation and God's Creation." But they disagreed with some key Bush proposals, especially the administration's emphasis on the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

"Humankind has a fundamental choice of priorities for its future," the religious leaders said in their letter, released on May 21. "By depleting energy sources, causing global warming, fouling the air with pollution, and poisoning the land with radioactive waste, a policy of increased reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power jeopardizes health and well-being for life on Earth."

Among President Bush's most controversial proposals are increased dependence on nuclear power, coal and natural gas as well as proposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The administration has also announced it will scrap U.S. support for the so-called Kyoto protocol on climate change, reversing the policies of Bush's predecessor. President Bill Clinton.

Though criticized by environmentalists. President Bush's energy initiatives have been defended by his administration as practical solutions to a growing U.S. energy crisis. The administration says that its plan also emphasizes the need for fuel conservation. In their letter, the religious leaders urged Americans to "reflect carefully and speak clearly from their deepest moral and religious convictions about the president's recently announced energy plan."

I think that it is absolutely irresponsible for the religious leaders to sign a letter that asks for the demise of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Further, their suggestion that nuclear power jeopardizes health and well-being for life on Earth is without foundation. Nuclear power plants have been operating safely for some thirty years in the US proper and also the US Navy without jeopardizing the health and well being of any lives on this earth.

In order that I do not indict all religions, the identities of the signatories to the letter are included. Signatories to the letter were:

Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA);

H. George Anderson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA);

Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, USA;

Metropolitan Theodosius, Archbishop of Washington and Metropolitan of All America and Canada, and Primate, Orthodox Church in America;

Judy Mills Reimer, executive director of general board of Church of the Brethren

We'd love to hear from you about this letter. Please send mail to PCUSA.NEWS@pcusa.org. (Don't bother to send a massages, they have deaf ears to anything they do not want to hear. )

To subscribe to news releases via an internet mailing list, send the word subscribe in an email message click on:

Their suggested action would be disastrous to the human race. In his book HARD GREEN, Pete Huber points out that prescriptions of the Soft (environmentalists) are grossly perverse.

"However good their intentions, the results are wanton destruction of the environment. Stop using premium fuels in big power plants. Instead prefer the wood fuel the led to the deforestation of all of England. The Soft technology environmentalists advocate living off the land. Once again. burn wood, garbage, bacterial mats, sunflower oil, peanut shells, chicken dipping, etc. Spread expensive low yield solar PV’s and wind power over all of the land and make more dams . Wind power is dilute, produces little energy, and consume large land masses. This is a prescription for destroying the land, not saving it. Nuclear power is energy intensive, and the best source of energy to spare the land and atmosphere."

If President Bush took the request of the religious leaders seriously he would have to phase out 91% of our electric energy generating plants because that is the fractional amount of electric energy generated by fossil and nuclear plants today. Seven percent of our electric energy is generated Hydro sites and there are no more sites available. So the renewables suggested by the religious leaders would have to increase from 2% today to 100%. This would bring about the collapse of machine civilization and would be accompanied by starvation, disease, and death on a scale difficult to comprehend."

The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. The cold reality is that for every additional one percent of gasoline replaced by ethanol, another one percent of land must be tilled. Such expansion of tilled land would be an ecological disaster. Biodiesel is even worse. To replace just 10 percent of our diesel needs with biodiesel, we would have to increase America's land under tillage by 25 percent or 100,000,000 acres.

Here's a quote in Nuclear Energy Now. It is motivated by the Bush Administration in the U.S. having tentatively re-opened the question of building new nuclear plants in the U.S. I hope they persist and are successful.

"With high probability, the countries of the world will face a decision between greatly expanded nuclear energy and a greatly reduced standard of living."

We are a faith community dedicated to environmental wholeness with social justice, seeking to be a prophetic voice for substantive change in the church and in the world.

The following are the instructions that the PRC gives their membership: Let your congressman know that you do NOT want an energy bill that:

Nuclear power a dangerous and expensive technology? Today energy from the 104 operating nuclear plants is about the lowest cost of electric energy generated today. It is about 3 cents per kWh. Compare the actual cost of energy generated by PV solar systems. PV systems provide electric energy which cost about 25 cents per kWh. The PRC recommends solar, but lies about the facts. I wonder if they would tell us what the solar PV systems on their churches costs and how it performs. I surmise that they have none on their own buildings.

Nuclear Power Plants Now the Lowest-Cost Electricity-Generating Technology, New World Nuclear Association Analysis Shows

A new World Nuclear Association report, which distills recent independent studies, concludes that nuclear power has become, in most major countries, the least-cost means of producing added base-load electricity. Entitled The New Economics of Nuclear Power and prepared by an international team of industry experts, the WNA Report focuses on economic costs and attaches no weight to other attributes of nuclear energy.

"At this stage in the nuclear renaissance, this is the most definitive analysis of the costs of building and operating nuclear power plants in the 21st century," said John Ritch, the WNA's Director General. "Nuclear power has already attained widespread recognition for its benefits in fossil pollution abatement, near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, price stability, and security of energy supply. The impressive new development is that these virtues are now a cost-free bonus, because nuclear energy has become the world's least expensive way to generate electricity."

Here is a speech given to the PRC by an invited speaker, Jenisse Ray. (This is the only kind of person they will invite.)

Brief History

In 1990, the 202 ^nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted (by a resounding 97% majority) the policy report Restoring Creation for Ecology and Justice. It calls Presbyterians to focus on caring for creation as a central concern, to be incorporated into the life and mission of the church at every level.

Presbyterians for Restoring Creation (PRC) was founded in 1995 as a national, grassroots organization to support people of faith working towards “environmental wholeness with social justice." PRC helps the church to fulfill its current environmental policies, to create new policies and practices, and to energize and educate church members about eco-justice, the well-being of all human kind on a thriving earth.

The PRC wants to reclaim their awareness of their spiritual connections with the whole of God's Creation, empowered by our rich biblical and theological heritage. My comment on this statement: They mean the whole of creation as the earth. I have never seen in the Bible where we are to have a spiritual connection with the earth. Do any of you see it?

I thought the central concern for Presbyterians was Christianity. Now it appears to be restoring creation, whatever that means. Reading their Web site, however, shows that they have adopted renewable energy as a method of restoring creation. I do not know what restoring creation means. Going back to the Garden of Eden?

The entire psychological infrastructure of the PRC movement is anti-environmental. Taking five billion humans "back to nature" is the worst thing they could do, not only for humans but for the earth too.

And I surely do not think that renewable energy systems alone will help the well-being of all humans to thrive on this earth. Just the opposite. I think we have another Earth first organization. They do feel, however, that the church needs substantial change toward environmental wholeness.

Go to their Web site http://www. prcweb.org and see what you think. However, they do not do anything free. Their ministry for saving the earth is expensive.

Presbyterians For Restoring Creation conference points the way to energy independence

"The world is good. The world is a gift. The world is a responsibility," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club as he spoke to 180 delegates at Linfield College in McMinnville, Oregon, for last week's conference (July 10-14, 2002) on the theme "Earth's Energy, God's Light," sponsored by the Presbyterians For Restoring Creation.

"We have the capacity to forsake the responsibility on a scale never before possible," Pope continued, "we also have the capacity to understand our responsibility."

The 180 delegates spent four days learning ways to accept some of the responsibility for the world's well-being with changes that can save money and energy resources at the same time.

Plenary speaker David Orr, chair of the environmental studies department at Oberlin College, led the way with talks and workshops about how to build and retrofit more energy-efficient buildings.

"We need to took at how we remake the human presence in the world," Orr said. "We need to match human intention with the way the world works."

Some of the things delegates learned about - through field trips, lectures, workshops, and an energy fair - were solar power options, passive solar features, energy saving designs, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient landscaping and habitat restoration.

My comments: So we now understand our responsibility and we will use passive solar, alternative energy vehicles, and retrofit more energy-efficient buildings to achieve energy independence. Looks like a stretch to me since we now import 13 million barrels of oil per day from foreign sources. Moreover, solar power does not yet contribute any energy to oil production.

The population apparently does not listen to the religious groups when they call for conservation. The Presbyterian church I attended last week in Sacramento, CA certainly did not turn off the air conditioning to conserve. If they are to call for conservation, why do they not conserve?

Every U.S. ISO and RTO Sees New Record Demand This Week

All seven of the regional independent electric grid operators in the U.S. set new record demands this week as they met the challenge of record temperatures without incident.

Peak demands reached in areas with independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) ranged from 0.9 percent to 4.5 percent higher than the peak levels reached in 2005. ISOs and RTOs serve two- thirds of the U.S. population.

Although some operators called for conservation measures to help maintain comfortable operating conditions, reserve margins for possible contingencies were adequate according to the ISO-RTO Council (IRC), which represents the seven U.S. ISOs and RTOs.

Regional grid operators reported a new aggregated peak record of electricity usage of 483,233 megawatts (MW) during this week's extreme heat and high humidity. Last year the peak for the grid operators was 475,717 MW.

The Web of Creation is another anti-nuclear religious based organization www.WebofCreation.org

Who We Are: The Web of Creation is maintained by the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and is supported through grant funding, sponsorship and endorsement from a variety of faith-based sources including: National Groups Eco-Justice Working Group of the National Council of Churches Theological Education to Meet the Environmental Challenge (TEMEC) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC/USA),

The Web of Creation has finally come up with its solution for energy of the world. Would you believe that renewables alone can serve the entire world? And decentralizing the generation of energy is their recommendation. Below is the paragraph that sums it up.

"The primary fight over energy production is between centralists and decentralists; that is, decentralizing the generation of energy as well as the authority and control. Therefore, the discussion is about democratic control as well as the generation of energy. New technologies can place an affordable, reliable, and accessible power supply near where it is needed, using the renewable sources of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass. When created with renewable energy, hydrogen produces a decentralized, completely zero-emission energy loop. Hydrogen can be used for both stationary (heating) and transportation (cars) applications. This energy can be stored in fuel cells. Petroleum-based natural gas will be the transition fuel to renewable energy. Switching to renewable energy will create many new jobs."

"The question is not how much these changes will cost—but how much it will cost if we don’t change." Lester Brown

The Web of Creation asked the right question. They have no idea of energy economics. They do have some misinformation that solar PV's cost $3.50 per watt to install and wind power produces energy at 4 cents per kWh.

"After energy is created from renewable sources, it must still be stored and distributed. We cannot turn on and off the wind and sunshine at will, therefore, we need to store an excess or have a backup power source. Now, they have found the solution: renewable energy can be used to produce hydrogen; the hydrogen can then be stored underground, and carried to cities and factories by pipeline. Lester Brown says, “Since hydrogen can be stored and used as needed, it provides perfect support for an energy economy with wind and solar power as the main pillars.”

"Hydrogen can store energy, but to reduce global warming, it must be generated from renewable energy sources. Natural gas, reacting with steam in a catalytic converter, produces half the hydrogen we now use as fuel. Coal can produce hydrogen, as can gasoline or methanol, but all these methods still create carbon dioxide. Producing hydrogen with renewable energy can be done with solar PV, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass." This process,

The overall plan to go from renewable electric energy to hydrogen production back to electric energy would be very costly and impracticable. Remember the current plan is to also use hydrogen to fuel autos, busses, and other transportation devices.

The plan of the Web of Creation might be a little expensive. Below is my estimate of the cost of hydrogen produced from electrolysis.

Equivalent cost of hydrogen energy to a gallon of gasoline using electrolysis of water at 50% efficiency

Moreover, no rational person would believe that renewables can supply sufficient energy for all of the world's needs. In the US, renewables currently now supply only 2% of our energy needs.

The Web of Creation neither understands the economics or the engineering infrastructure needed to bring about their plan. There are very few solar and wind sites east of the Mississippi River. This means that the solar electric energy would need to be generated in the California and Arizona deserts, and wind energy generated in the Dakotas and Kansas where only 20% of this energy results in a quantity of hydrogen to be piped to all of the densely populated states east of the Mississippi. Their whole plan is lunacy.

Here is the solution offered by the Web of Creation to help the developing world's energy situation.

Hydrogen Energy in the Third World:
The Politics of Re-globalization from the Bottom Up.

Small-scale electricity may have the greatest impact in the developing world, where central power grids are vulnerable to frequent blackout. Power plant and grid construction in the Third World has created multibillion-dollar debts for their governments, yet 2 billion people (30% of world population) still have no electricity at all.

Renewable energy technologies—wind, photovoltaic, hydro, biomass, etc, can enable villages to produce their own electricity to make hydrogen and then store it in fuel cells. When enough fuel cells are in place, mini energy grids can connect urban neighborhoods and rural villages into expanding energy networks that can grow organically.

Our responsibility as researchers is nothing short of organizing a scientific initiative as complex and daunting as putting a human on the moon, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that life as we know it continues to exist." Museum Provost of Science Michael J. Novacek

Comment 1:To summarize, the Web of Creation's plan is to employ small pods of renewable energy to produce electrical energy to electrolyzers to produce hydrogen which can be stored in local fuel cells to again supply electrical energy at each location as needed. As more and more little pods are put up they will tie them all together into a network that can supply electrical energy throughout the entire complex. This is in keeping with their over all plan for the world to supply hydrogen in order to have a continuous energy supply when the renewables are not available such as periods of no wind or solar. .

Comment 2: What is wrong with this plan? First off, fuel cells do not store hydrogen. They would have to have an extensive hydrogen and compressor and high pressure storage tanks at each location. Moreover, it is very inefficient to go from solar. wind electric energy to produce hydrogen to fuel cell to electric energy all in series. The overall efficiency would be about 15%. Thus the end product of the capital cost to supply the electrical energy would be orders of magnitude of what it costs to go directly from renewables to the user. In an issue of “Readers’ Forum,” p. 46, Ronald West and Frank Kreith detail the inefficiencies of using electricity to generate hydrogen to supply fuel cells to again generate electricity. They assert that the associated cost is even more disturbing. (West and Kreith are proponents for using renewables for hydrogen production.)

Comment 3: Fuel cells are very expensive and the end use is intended to go from electrical energy to hydrogen to provide energy for the transportation vehicles and some day air planes. Fuel cells do not lend themselves to central station power plants. It wastes energy to produce hydrogen and then use the hydrogen to fuel central station power plants. The Web of Creation's plan to use hydrogen as a fuel to act as a buffer when renewables are not available is flawed. It is entirely impracticable from a cost as well as a generation of electricity standpoint. Renewables now produce only a small fraction of our energy needs and a scientific program as was employed to go to the moon will never make the sun shine any brighter or longer or the wind to blow any harder to accomplish the goal. They should give up the renewable energy production as only a part time expensive performer. But they live in a dream world along with the environmentalists.

Who We Are: The Regeneration Project is a project of the Tides Center. The Rev. Sally Bingham, minister at Grace Cathedral and Chair of the Commission for the Environment of the Diocese of California and Steve MacAusland Co-chair of the Committee on Faith and the Environment for the Diocese of Massachusetts are developing the Episcopal Power and Light Ministry with the support of the Regeneration Project, a San Francisco based public charity. Their mission is to help, at no cost, individuals and institutions of the Episcopal Church to further their stewardship of Creation. Establishing this energy program in the Episcopal Church and sharing it with the interfaith community is their highest priority at this time. Please call Sally or Steve with comments or inquiries.

I think their stewardship advice is questionable. I called The Rev Sally Bingham with an inquiry. I asked if any churches have renewable energy systems that supplied all of their electrical load. Yes was her reply. A church in Los Gatos, CA has a solar PV system on their roof which supplies all of their electrical energy and still has some left over which they sell to others.

So I visited the Los Gatos Church to see how they did this. I talked to the person in charge of buildings and got a totally different story. The solar system supplies only about 20% of their total electric load and they certainly did not have any left over. I was told that a church member donated $50,000 for the system. With the rebate offered by the State of California I surmised that the total system cost was $80,000 and its capacity is about 8 kWe. This would supply an annual energy of about 10,500 kWh. A saving of about $1,500 per year. To pay off $50,000 over 30 years would cost $3,600 per year. Remember churches do not get the federal tax break of 10% and that state tax break of 7.5% because they pay no income taxes. Of course they did not have to make any annual payments since the total sum was donated. Energy is free when someone else pays for it.

I ask you, would any rational organization spend $3,600 per year to save $1,500 per year. That is hardly good stewardship of the churches money. I firmly believe that many environmental people deceive themselves about the performance of renewable systems.

Alert from Winningreen A032205 Episcopal Church opposes drilling in ANWR citing bogus threat to caribou By Tom Randall Date: March 22, 2005

Issue: Bishops of the Episcopal Church have come out in opposition to oil exploration in the 2,000 acres of the 19.5 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which Congress recently set aside for that purpose. They cited their concern for the porcupine caribou, which are a staple in the lives of the Gwich'in Indians, who are about 90 percent Episcopalian.

The bishops said, "To risk the destruction of an untouched wilderness and an ancient culture violates our theological mandate to be caretakers of creation."

Comment 1: The Episcopal statement on being caretakers of nature is a gross misstatement of scripture that is not nearly as simple-minded as they make it out to be.

Comment 2: The refuge is not an untouched wilderness. The Gwich'in live there. Oil exploration in just 2,000 acres out of 19.5 million would be no more intrusive than Gwich'in villages. In the end, less so.

Comment 3: Today's Gwich'in culture is not the ancient one the Episcopals refer to. It is one of hardship, and deprivation. The Gwich'in could benefit from the same kind of schools, hospitals and other services oil income would provide.

Comment 4: The Episcopal Church has ignored the hard evidence that oil exploration poses no threat to caribou. The caribou, which migrate through the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay, have increased in population from 3,000 to 36,000 since exploration began there in the 1970s.

Contact: Tom Randall Winningreen LLC 3712 N. Broadway – PMB 279 Chicago, IL 60613 Phone: 773-857-5086

Sustainable energy systems use renewable energy sources to create energy. The most common renewables are wind and solar. But there are other inexhaustible energy supplies: biomass; geothermal; ocean energy from the tides, currents and waves; and ocean thermal energy. Janet Sawin in “Charting a New Energy Future” in the State of the World 2003, says “experts estimate that onshore wind resources could provide more than four times global electricity consumption,” and that “each year the sun delivers to Earth more than 10,000 times the energy that humans currently use.” In fact, “ all U.S. electricity could be provided by wind turbines in just three states— Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota—or with solar energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada.” She says it is entirely possible that “half our power will come from small-scale systems, with the rest coming from larger renewable energy plants such as wind and solar farms—making central energy plants no longer necessary.” The energy is there—the needed policies are not

Janet Sawin serves as the Director of the Institute’s Energy and Climate Change Program. She joined World watch in 2002, shortly after earning Master’s and Doctoral degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where she studied energy and environmental policy. Her doctoral thesis examined the impact of government policy on the development and diffusion of renewable energy technologies.

My comments: Here is a lawyer telling us we can get all of our energy from the vast amounts of solar and wind that is prevalent daily on our plant. We can get the wind energy in three states and off shore, and solar energy from the vast western desert regions and send it to places like New York City. We also do not need central power plants. She did not tell us what the small scale systems are. All we need to do is change our policies and poof it will be done.

Hillary Clinton must be listening to Janet since Hillary intends to spend 3 trillion dollars making solar mirrors and solar PV panels, etc.

This ridiculous mantra will never end. We should recognize it as false information and move on to nuclear power that can supply economical energy until the sun burns out.

MY comment: The darkened italic words are certainly not the way to supply economical sustainable energy for God's creation and God's justice. Renewables are too expensive and supply very little sustained energy. There is not a church in the USA today that is sustained by renewable energy today. If it works why have they not done it?.

Nuclear power using the Fast Breeder Reactor and the IFR refueling system ts the energy source that can sustain the population of this earth until the sun burns out.

Below is a list of the National council of Churches NCC. It is my understanding that these all endorse the energy policies of the Web of Creation. I apologize if there are some in this list who do not. Perhaps there are some who are not familiar with the convoluted energy polices of the misguided National Council of Churches.

African Methodist Episcopal Church

African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church

The Alliance of Baptists in the U.S.A.

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

Armenian Apostolic Church, Diocese of America

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada

Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

Church of the Brethren

Coptic Orthodox Church

Episcopal Church

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Friends United Meeting

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Hungarian Reformed Church in America

International Council of Community Churches

Korean Presbyterian Church in America, General Assembly of the

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Diocese of America

Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India

Moravian Church in America (Unitas Fratrum)

National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.

National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.

National Missionary Baptist Convention of America

The Orthodox Church in America

Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A.

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends

Polish National Catholic Church of America

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

Reformed Church in America

Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada

The Swedenborgian Church

Syrian (Syriac) Orthodox Church of Antioch

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

United Church of Christ

The United Methodist Church

The quote below is the most cogent statements I have seen. The religions should take notice.

Over time the proposed nuclear-driven energy supply architecture would displace fossil fuels and provide energy to support a global energy infrastructure meeting all aspects of sustainable development - secure longevity, ecological compatibility and social acceptability [1]. With concomitant institutional innovation it might succeed to fuel an increase in GDP/capital for the 80% of humanity which was not reached by the Industrial Revolution.

G. Bruntland, Chairman, World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987), Our Common Future (The Bruntland Report), Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.