Climate Change Comments

This is a followup to Hans' comment in an earlier post. I started to write this in a "comment" box after the post, and tired quickly of the space constraints, so I moved it here.

In connection with the "nothing to lose" comment [if we behaved as though climate change were real] , I thought of the financial loss aspect, and by extrapolation, the loss of other creature comforts and necessities, when I wrote that. I decided, however, not to add the qualifiers I was noting mentally, opting for brevity (I know--hard to believe.) rather than thoroughness. I quoted James, and said I agreed with him. While I might not have made the statement in exactly the same sweeping terms he used, I identified with an implicit conviction that the path of caution has much to recommend it.

In the conversation with James I had said, in effect, that I see environmental factors through the lens of an obligation to be good caretakers (stewards) of our earthly environment. When that commitment is firm, I believe that in our personal choices, financial losses can legitimately be incurred in the pursuit of discharging that obligation. It is a way of making an offering of obedience to the Lord. I think some of the farmers I know do that as a matter of principle.

I admit to having a visceral feeling of disgust with what I hear from the American industry side of the environmental debate. I think the underlying motivation for resisting environmental controls is almost always profit driven--what the Bible calls "the love of money" and which is identified as "the root of all evil." I think James identifies in industry the same underlying motive I see, and is mentally juxtaposing love for money and love for people, and feels that when a minister seems to tilt toward the "love of money" side, it's especially galling. I know you would say that the choices are not that clear cut, and I agree.

I followed the links you posted, and the next comments were written after I read them.

I’m not interested in doing the necessary research to establish the national and international scope of environmental problems. Neither am I interested in aligning myself with a specific political position in relation to environmental regulations. I won't attempt to support or refute what I think is your basic premise--that being against government environmental regulations is not equivalent to being unloving toward people. I do nevertheless feel like challenging some of the strong statements you're making--not because I'm taking offense, or because I think it's totally untrue, but because I think some of it is unclear and there could be benefit from expanding the view a bit in some areas. The whole debate does not turn on one factor; for example, whether or not placing regulatory limits on industry causes more suffering for poor people than leaving industry to its own devices--although I agree that considering this issue is valid.

You say "If there is global warming, people can always find high ground--it's not as if it will move with tsunami-speed. However, a creeping global food shortage because of high expenses because it costs so much more to produce is actual tangible, projected suffering." Are you saying that people can adjust to global warming because they have more time, but they can't adjust to food shortages that will happen right away? I tend to think the food shortages would happen slowly too, if they were a trickle-down effect of a slow-down in industrial output. The swift results would happen in the coffers of industry giants. What is the "high ground" that people will be able to find in the event of climate change?--high moral ground? less harsh environments in which to live and grow food? How does producing food cost so much more with government control of industry pollution? I don't think government limitations on fossil fuel for agriculture is being proposed. That's where it would seem to me be a possible limiting factor on food production--less so in industry controls. Making the “leap” from government environmental controls on industry to assured food shortages could be challenged, I believe.

I have heard statistics and stories from reputable organizations about how factory emissions and effluents sicken many poor people who live downstream or downwind from the factories, or who work in them without adequate protection. On the basis of this information, I think a case could be made about lack of carefulness with environmental pollution disproportionately affecting the poor also. These people need jobs, even if the jobs sicken them; they need a place to live, and don't have the resources to move away or fight back against the deplorable conditions they live in. With or without government controls the poor are disproportionately affected by industrial pollution.

I’m as dismayed by the prayer to the Mayan goddess as you are. It happened in a U.N. meeting in Mexico, and the person offering the prayer had a clearly Hispanic name. I assume she was from Mexico, and the goddess she addressed is one of the gods and goddesses still worshiped in that part of the world. I acknowledge also that a lot of religious garbage is associated with the environmental movement. When this happens, I think often the earth is regarded as part of God Himself–not a created entity, apart from God, and lovingly fashioned and watched over by God, as I believe it is.

In the one source you referenced, most of the rhetoric and research focuses on the disaster of enacting governmental controls on the use of fossil fuels. Free market forces are seen as a better source of control than government controls. Frankly, I don’t have a vision for going to bat for either of those causes. While free markets are often lifted up as the righteous alternative to unholy government meddling, I see a lot of residual Social Darwinism in unbridled enthusiasm for free markets. I don’t like government meddling either, but I recognize the need for restraint from some source, without which the powerful (right or wrong, selfish or benevolent) would always have their way while the weak would bow to their will. The answer is neither in free markets or in governmental controls, of course, but in the changed lives of people who live by Godly principles.

Fossil fuels are a monster in the climate change discussion. If we could instantly stop using fossil fuels, everyone in the current debate could shut up and go home. Other kinds of pollution present health hazards, but no one is suggesting that they cause climate change. We can’t move away from fossil fuel use instantly, of course, or render them innocuous, but I see moving away from fossil fuel energy use as a good thing overall, unless it can be made far cleaner than it is now.

The fact that fossil fuels pollute is undeniable, and I'm as concerned about their health effects as about their possible climate change effects. When people talk about cap and trade laws, for example, I see such laws as being good on the side of moving toward less fossil fuel use, or cleaner use, but I’m not prepared to defend cap and trade laws as being good and right–for some of the reasons the article you cited suggests. It’s a messy business with few easy answers.

I'm encouraged when I remember that I'm not responsible for deciding what is right for everyone in every place and time. I can start with the principles I find in Scripture, and God will give me wisdom to know how to apply them in the situations that are part of my life.