Church Goers Should Walk If They Can

Someone sent this to me anonymously with the caption.

An LDS ward parking lot near our home that accommodates over 180 cars, not including overflow on the street. The most of the congregation lives within 0.5 mi of the building.

If every Mormon in Utah walked rather than drove to church on Sunday and during the week, how much gas could we save? We did the math: around 1.2 million gallons of gas each year.

  1. #1 by Jobu on July 13, 2008 - 5:14 pm

    After walking on water all week, Mormons are generally too tired to walk to church.

  2. #2 by Again w/ the Mormons... on July 13, 2008 - 7:05 pm

    You try walking half a mile with a 2 year old. And, judging by your picture, do it in the winter rain/snow.

  3. #3 by Paul Mero on July 13, 2008 - 9:49 pm

    …and if congressional lefties (and spineless Republicans) would allow the domestic production of oil and gas…the whole point of this post would be even more irrelevant than it already is.

  4. #4 by Who is watching the watchers? on July 13, 2008 - 10:03 pm

    Nothing is to difficult to be with Lord on Sunday is it? Oops, I mean Saturday. Or is it Sunday? No Sunday is the day the Devil fooled the faithful into going to piss God off.

    Maybe I’m mixing my myths. What is it? Don’t mix grapes and grains, or something like that.

    Perhaps you can drive to the Ward house in this.

  5. #5 by Cliff Lyon on July 14, 2008 - 7:47 am


    In case you missed it…the oil execs told a Senate Committee in unison and unanimously that new drilling would not produce one drop for ten years and have NO effect on the price of gas.

    Of course the oil expoloration corps stand to make a fortune. Can you name the one that Dick Cheney works for?

    After all the canards foisted on the American people over the past 7 years, how is it possible you are still swallowing and regurgitating their shit in whole chunks.

    Who is YOUR master?

  6. #6 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 8:41 am


    Shame on you! Your comment says it all and couldn’t be more clear as to your true intentions! You – as with conservatives in general – clearly advocate the “burn it if you got it” mentality that brought us the current oil crisis in America.

    How dare you suggest that if the oil taps were turned on offshore and in the ANWR, then we should be able to just go about our current driving ways! Care to guess how many SUVs are in the parking lot, ready to spew needless gobs of noxious gases into the atmosphere? Have you taken a look at the haze lately that covers the skies of our metropolitan centers – including SLC and St. George? Or have you counted lately how many overweight folks – including teenagers – are sitting in the church pews, getting fattened up so they can feed at the trough of public entitlements you so clearly despise by requiring otherwise unnecessary expenditures for health care?

    While you may get away with stating this kind of crap at the Institute or your local ward house, you will be called to the carpet here and asked to explain yourself. Indeed, your above comment brings you inline to receive OneUtah’s most idiotic, shortsighted statement of the year award, usually reserved for Ken Bingham.

    I expect a little more from a man of your stature and position.

  7. #7 by Cliff Lyon on July 14, 2008 - 9:34 am

    WoeWha there Albert. We like Paul and we want him. Lets not scare him off before he gets started.

    Holster your weapon private!

  8. #8 by Albert O. on July 14, 2008 - 9:45 am

    Sorry, Paul.

    You were probably just kidding, anyway … right????

  9. #9 by Who is watching the watchers on July 14, 2008 - 10:24 am

    Don’t be ridiculous, this is disinformation. The moment a well is drilled and capped, the oil under pressure comes up out of the ground, to be carried by pipeline or conveyance to a refinery or point of sale.

    You fools are burning gas from Colorado that came out of the ground last year upon well completion. Of course it is a process. Your electricity is burned coal dragged out of the ground, probably within the last year.

    *From the point that Cliff decided to create this mop there was a time frame before it was distilled into this progressive offal spreader.

    Any well brought on line once it is drilled and connected to infrastructure, is producing oil, it is operating on simple cash flow principles, knowing that the demand and price are there to warrant the investment. To deny this is laughable. The wells that have been drilled in Eastern Utah are currently producing around Sigurd. Time lapse from inception, 3 years.

    As for your own smog, you are all responsible, and Cliff and Albert are still running their 6 cylinder SUV abominations as far as a I know. Sure, smoke hangs out, what did you expect living in the midst of a continental DESERT? Fart into your cupped palm, and place it under your nose, and breath deeply. You truly have to consider the impact on health of breathing simple airborne muck that blows through the State all the time. Cars or not, Utah is dry and dusty, you breath it no matter what.

    Why do you imagine oil execs give such a negative outlook? Can you wrap your head around 5 dollar gas? What would be the point of spinning their wheels, doing the work, only to increase supply and then lower PRICE?

    Do you guys have any common sense, or just credentials?

  10. #10 by Paul Mero on July 14, 2008 - 10:07 pm

    I would settle for Utah’s oil shale production alone: U.S. energy problem solved for a long-enough time that maybe, just maybe, all of the greenies cockamamie ideas for an idyllic carbon-less world might come true.

  11. #11 by Larry Bergan on July 15, 2008 - 1:50 am

    Yeah, it all dates back to Jimmy Carters cockamamie idea not to increase levels of oil coming from the middle east almost thirty years ago. What a stupid idea that turned out to be.

    Thank goodness Reagan rode into town and saved us all from innovative new ideas, and thank goodness Bush is continuing in the tradition by forestalling a solar farm project in Utah due to his newfound love of all wildlife.

  12. #12 by Richard Warnick on July 15, 2008 - 6:04 am

    Welcome, Paul Mero. Before advocating the complete annihilation of Utah wildlands for oil shale (which cannot be produced without government subsidies), please read my post from last February— and be sure to check out the maps!

  13. #13 by Who is watching the watchers on July 15, 2008 - 7:44 am

    Well, it was Jimmy Carter that designated a good portion of Western Colorado and Eastern Utah a “National Energy Sacrifice Zone” in 1978. There are people currently (Slumberger utilizing Raytheon microwave technology) claiming they can collect shale oil in place for 30 dollars a barrel. Low impact. The only subsidy they would be receiving would be the right to extract the oil, basically for free. There would be no subsidy other than this.

    As soon as the economy ends up where it is headed, and people are losing their savings, houses and jobs, no one will care much how and where we get oil from, just that we get it.

    Just remember, a solar farm would have to comprise 25 square miles of panels alone to equal the output of one 4000 MW nuclear reactor. I figure until individuals in conjunction with state programs manage to put solar panels on the roofs of their houses, you can pretty much expect no one will set up a solar farm of any consequence.

    The State of Colorado is reimbursing home owners 50% of the cost of solar panels that are connected to the grid. Don’t know what’s up in Utah, but I can sure hear a bunch of unmitigated whining.

    The start up for one the size of the nuke plant would be 40 billion anyway, just for infrastructure, never mind the army of squeegeemen to keep it clean and running at top efficiency.

  14. #14 by ALiberalMormon on July 15, 2008 - 10:17 am

    You try walking half a mile with a 2 year old. And, judging by your picture, do it in the winter rain/snow.

    Again, we belong to a faith which in a couple of weeks will celebrate with great enthusiasm our history of leaving virtually all worldly possessions and walking with our families across the plains and rockies to settle here in Utah…a faith which teaches our children the song “Pioneer Children Sang as They Walked,”…and you’re going to complain about a half-mile walk to church?

    And I don’t understand how it is that Paul considers the advice to conserve our resources and be good stewards of the resources God has given us “irrelevant?” Why is the urge to turn western Utah into a lunarscape so that we can pump more pollution into the air and create even more red burn days along the Wasatch Front more relevant?

  15. #15 by Larry Bergan on July 15, 2008 - 1:06 pm


    Are you sure the pioneers didn’t have Buick’s?

  16. #16 by Allie on July 15, 2008 - 1:38 pm

    Several years ago we used to drive a block and a half to church. Then my brother in law came to visit and said, “that’s so nice, you can walk to church”. We walked after that (in snow and rain, with 2 year olds, and 3 year olds, and newborns (that makes it sound like I have way more kids than I do….)).

    I’m trying to arrange my life so I don’t ever have to drive. I just need a grocery store within walking distance…

  17. #17 by Who is watching the watchers on July 15, 2008 - 1:56 pm

    Most of Utah outside the waterways is a lunar landscape. Quite pretty, like mountains of the moon, but mostly uninhabitable without some kind of mechanical, technical advantage. It sure is no Eden.

    No matter where the grocery store is, there will be some kind of conveyance to bring the essentials to you. City living is unsustainable. The crowding, pollution, the requirements of all needs brought to the city, the inhospitable human created environ that precludes most wildlife, other than pigeons and rats. Hardly a modern problem, it has been this way since cities first appeared on Earth. Only vast quantities of cheap energy has made decent quality of life in cities possible. Watch and see how it gets when we don’t have it. Conservation won’t cut it. Cities were filthy before anyone discovered oil.

    Not seeing that part yet? You may well.

  18. #18 by ALiberalMormon on July 15, 2008 - 2:54 pm


    “And then Brigham Young unbuckled his seatbelt, and peered around the driver’s seat out the windshield of his dusty Ford Expedition.”

    ” ‘This is the right place’ he said, as his driver took it out of neutral. ‘Drive on.’ “

  19. #19 by Larry Bergan on July 16, 2008 - 12:10 am


    Wow, that verse is quite an anthropological find, but make sure Mark Hoffman didn’t have his hands in it somewhere.

  20. #20 by Cameron on July 17, 2008 - 10:41 pm

    Carter’s plan was to substitute coal for oil. Are we all still on the “Carter as Energy Genius” bandwagon?

    Of course, all those fat, lazy, lobotomized Mormons could have filled that parking lot with domestically fueled vehicles.

  21. #21 by Cameron on July 17, 2008 - 10:52 pm

    This post reminds me of a dinner I attended as a UofU student. I was working for a research department on campus and the dinner was a work Christmas party. One couple kept talking about how evil people with big cars were, and that when she had her daughter she would put her on a bike with her and bike around town. To this day I regret not speaking aloud the question that popped into my head – what happens if you have two kids? Or heaven forbid, 3 or 4. Of course, this couple admitted to owning and driving a full size, extended cab dodge truck. But only because they really needed one for all the off road driving they did. Oh, well then. As long as you need it.

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on July 18, 2008 - 1:16 am

    I have to admit that I was unaware of Carters plan to declare parts of Utah as an “energy sacrifice zone”. That would have been the last thing I wanted, but the environmental groups didn’t seem to get concerned until Reagan took over and appointed an oil company lawyer as the Secretary of the Interior. That’s when I remember all the talk about coal development starting.

    I don’t believe for a minute that Carter had any plans to profit from energy production as the people we have in there now want. Carter would have supported any alternative method that would have gotten us away from the nightmare we face today because of the oil greed crowd, and would have tried to conserve energy instead of promoting conspicuous consumption like Reagan did.

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on July 18, 2008 - 7:51 am

    I’m familiar with the term “national sacrifice area” from a documentary made in 1984, “The Four Corners: A National Sacrifice Area?”

    With all the talk about tearing up Utah for oil shale, which can’t be developed without massive government subsidies, it seems nothing has changed. What I always thought was odd is the way some people who live here are in favor of destroying the place where they live.

  24. #24 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 8:15 am

    You see Larry, Carter’s discipline was that of being a naval officer, an engineer on a nuclear submarine. If he had believed there was a better way he would have promoted it. You have not yet figured it because your ideology rather tends to blind.

    Read his naval bio. He helped in the design of ship nuclear reactors.

    It doesn’t matter who is in power, we either get the energy we have from our own lands, or we trash and war somewhere else. Or pay through the nose, with our money going to build the infrastructures of oil wealthy nations. Like Dubai. That is what is making us so popular around the world. There is no cheating the reality, conservation is a great idea, but the point is, until transition is made, there is going be a basal need for oil in this country.

    Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer, burning diesel, and tilling soil to grow peanuts to be sold for profit. Do you imagine he grew peanuts, for well peanuts? He isn’t some altruistic savior. Apart from having an alcoholic wife, he promoted oil shale. He is just a man, and his history is there to be read.

    The fact is he was the president that authorized and subsidized fully, the first attempt at oil shale production out near Grand Junction Co. to the tune of 15 billion.

    Which of course was initiated, run, and to the main benefit of Exxon. It went bust, decimating the western Colorado economy and the taxpayer foot the bill. Still messes around from Jimmys’ attempt, including using the extracted Gilsonite tailings for fill.

    Those houses built on it are to be avoided while looking for real estate in the Grand Valley.

    Belief, the foundation of faith Larry, has some serious downsides.

  25. #25 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 8:28 am

    Read this Larry, things are not always what they seem.

    By the way Larry, it isn’t a plan, it is still designated for that kind of activity. It is why energy companies have such an easy time getting their way down there. Take a drive east of Moab, through Junction and up I-70 towards Glenwood Springs and beyond.

    You won’t believe it, and that is just what you can see, which is just a samll fraction of the development that is occurring just over the ridge lines. Once personally viewed, anyone with some perception can see that this plan has the sanction of just about everyone except the people it is directly impacting.

    Go and have a look, I dare you. What you wish to prevent, is well underway, the plans laid down when Jimmy Carter was president. I’ll be down there next month, drive on down if you got an extra 200 bucks, and I’ll show you.

  26. #26 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 8:40 am

    Richard take a look at Slumbergers’ proposal. There would be no overburden removal in their process, nor would much of the shale be disturbed.

    The shale would be “cooked” in place, using the microwave technology, which would allow the trapped oil to flow to sump points, where wells would be drilled to enable extraction.

    The subsidy would be letting them “have” any oil they extract at their expense, minus paying a percentage to the Feds, or State, or private lands, depending on where they are permitted.

  27. #27 by ALiberalMormon on July 18, 2008 - 9:57 am

    Cameron said:

    One couple kept talking about how evil people with big cars were, and that when she had her daughter she would put her on a bike with her and bike around town. To this day I regret not speaking aloud the question that popped into my head – what happens if you have two kids? Or heaven forbid, 3 or 4.

    Somehow, big families got around as needed before Suburbans and Expeditions. It can happen again, it just takes a little forethought and consideration.

    As to bikes, there are plenty of bike trailers for those with kids. There are even bikes called Dutch Cargo Bikes where you can seat four kids.

    Does that mean there is no need at any time for larger cars or even SUVs? No. There are some legitimate needs for those. But that doesn’t change the fact that most people could probably leave them in the driveway and go on a family stroll to Church when it is close by. It’s called conscious living.

  28. #28 by Lisa on July 18, 2008 - 10:20 am

    Mr. Watcher,

    I always read your stuff looking for the substance and answers, but in the end, I find very little of either.

    The comment about Jimmy Carters wife being an alcoholic was revealing. What does that have to do with energy or peanut farming?

    I think you like to destroy things. Anything before you is subject to attack for the sake of it.

  29. #29 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 11:41 am

    Well Lisa; Useless things have to be torn down before you can build something new.

    Here is a secret if you did not know. This is for me an exercise. One of knowing the minds of my enemies, and weaknesses of opinions I might agree with. Can’t win if you don’t know what your opponent thinks or what assets they possess can you? Any success without can only be attributed to luck, or the divine. I don’t necessarily agree with what I write, but it will be there for any to review as the opposition to most of what you read here.

    Agree or disagree, you are going to have to face these arguments full tilt, if you ever hope to overcome the opposition. Seems that exercise and getting in shape for that, is as all exercise, a little painful.

    Jimmy Carter lived with his alcoholic wife for many years before getting her some help, by then she was pretty messed up. Point is contrary to Larrys’ diefication of the man, he has problems like all people, personally and professionally, that he tries to overcome. The failure in Junction is real.

    Rosalyn would freely admit she is an alcoholic to dismiss any notion that hiding it is a good thing. She, and her husband have accepted the reality, and have grown from it.

    I see that you offer no specifics in your critique of my facts. The solutions you seek are operating all day, as cars whiz on the freeways, and the coal burns 24/7 out on the Swell. Some people don’t view it as a problem. I personally do, but in the interests of training up some intellect that does do more than whine, review the facts I post, and respond with something other than your feelings.

    Meanwhile, thanks and keep reading, it is up to you to think what you like, that is the beauty of the 1st amendment, you get to.

  30. #30 by Larry Bergan on July 18, 2008 - 12:08 pm

    The day I start to see president Carter as equally deceitful as Reagan, Bush, Dole, Gingrich, Army, Hyde, Helms, ect,ect,ect… is the day glenn/watcher/rope/jilly/man of m/jester/MYSELF (yes glenn has even used my name here)/ect,ect,ect… will have finally convinced me there is no hope, “they’re all the same”, and I will probably just blow my brains out.

    But all of this 30 years old stuff is now irrelevant, because another one of glenns arch nemesis’s, Al Gore, has called for 100% energy self reliance for America WITHIN TEN YEARS. I believe we can do it because Al says we can, and the only thing that will stop it is the Republican party and shills in the Democratic party, NOT both parties equally.

    Sorry glenn, but although you make enough good points to have people who aren’t paying attention take you seriously, it is just another tactic of deceitful people such as yourself who think the left wing is going to take away a dime of yours, so you spend time trying to make them give up hope on the internet as a pastime.

  31. #31 by Lisa on July 18, 2008 - 12:08 pm

    That was very helpful Mr. Watcher. When will you know if things are sufficiently torn down so that you can offer a solution?

    I did not question your facts and will not, because they only litter hyperbole that is non-nonsensical if not just ridiculous. But that you accuse me of “offer no specifics in your critique of my facts” demonstrates to me that your reality is so divergence from the basic one required for debate that you cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Can you understand that? Its a non-starter. How can you reasonably ask an normal person to respond to a false accusation — a non-event. This is my second ever comment here so it should not be hard to find where I critiqued your facts.

    Your explanation of Mrs. Carter did not address the fact that it was a mean and personal jab. Nothing more nothing less. But the arrogance of your denial of that juvenile attack by suggesting that she and Jimmy have “grown from it” is frankly breathtaking.

    Hey. No what? Never mind.

  32. #32 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 12:29 pm

    The solution on the Swell worked so well in fact, they up and built another one just rather like it, right about next to it. Very efficient. 1600 MW I believe. Keeping the lights on for you. Anyone personally own any solar equipment that posts here besides Ken S. Anyone? You waiting for Al to take someones money and give them to you?

    Ok, who has any alternatives besides what god gave you or a bike?

    Even a solar powered watch would be something, how about the solar powered tiki lights? 5 bucks at the right place, though watch the NiCad, and the Lithium Batteries.

  33. #33 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 12:43 pm

    We have not even started to tear down what does not work. I refer to the Swell, the freeway, the cash tax incentives to purchase 6000 lbs vehicles.

    Once again no specifics Lisa, what non-event are you referring to? I see that if you cannot discuss Jimmys’ life in a nuclear sub, or his capitalist enterprise as a peanut farmer, then of course history means not so much. Did you know that this is Jimmys’ past.

    Once again your opinion, deifying any person is a dangerous practice, we are all flawed, and worshiping others, and their opinions is is how these disasters get started in the first place. Roslyn told it, I never did, she made it a national charge. So no one gets to reference it in the context of Jimmys’ life? Do you know how long it was kept a secret and she had to suffer? Take a breath now. I feel no guilt over the reference, it is in the open, it does speak to his judgment that a man with his money and power waited so long to get her help. In fact hid the reality. He is a better man now, I suppose.

    Larry it is why the side you support fails most of the time, you discount that the opposition have as much if not more zeal than you do. I’m not trying to make you give up hope Larry, you are not 5 years old and shouldn’t need encouragement.

    What I am trying to do is get you to some level that your ideas might be competitive with those that have either lied or deceived the People. Has not the last 8 years of rock solid ass whipping, and the ineffectual efforts of your own party not proof enough?

    Where’s your solar panel Larry? Anyway Cliff, you can stop playing now.

    How about the 15 billion that ended up in Exxons pocket from the Federal program he created to get “synfuels” up and running? Was that a mistake?

    The day will come Larry, and that will be the day you will become of some use, should you decide not to part company. Besides, you need a records check for that.

  34. #34 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 2:01 pm

    Non-nonsensical? A double negative. So you mean logical, Lisa? I am trying to interpret the mystical nature of your complaint. It could be construed as a non-starter.

    I have perused the posts, and cannot see any facts you offer to dispute my own.

  35. #35 by Allie on July 18, 2008 - 2:14 pm

    ALiberalMormon- People did get around before SUV’s. In the case of my inlaws they either piled too many people into a tiny car, or they took two cars.

    Although many people hate the idea of a minivan, they get better gas mileage and can hold as many people as most SUV’s.

  36. #36 by Who is watching the watchers on July 18, 2008 - 2:23 pm

    Within ten years says Al. Will we be as effiicient as his own mansion that has seen and increase in its power consumption since he has installed his systems? The guy doesn’t conserve, he clearly is far too important to do so.

    Needless to say these systems are expensive, how many of us have 30-40k extra to install these systems? Not saying that it couldn’t be done, but do any of you have these systems in place, or any mitigating technology?

    None of these systems will run your car yet either.

    The cost of a 10k fuel cell is about 25k, and it still needs to use fuel(propane) to work. The fuel is stripped of its hydrogen, by a reformer, and then utilized in the fuel cell. Yes, there is still CO2 when this runs. There is as yet no infrastructure to speak of for pure hydrogen that would result in no Co2 emmissions.

    The fuel cell used in all prototypes is the 75KW Ballard fuel cell made in Burnaby Canada. To date most fuel cell development is sponsored by big auto companies, the military, and space programs. Ever seen one? Have any of you ever seen one?

    What does Al suppose is going to replace the 3200 MW down on the Swell? Perhaps if every house in Utah were modified for solar we could break the lock. The plants on the Swell however have legal license, and will act to preserve their future, as will the coal mines. Nothing short of martial control will change our current reality. However, if you take every spare penny and do it yourself, or in groups, the system will slowly change gradually, until perhaps we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuel…to a degree, until we can find other options.

    Does that work for you Lisa, if it doesn’t, I haven’t seen a feather of your plans. Lay it out for us.

  37. #37 by digglit on July 22, 2008 - 8:54 pm

    colorado technical instituteChurch Goers Should Walk If They Can

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: