The global warming people are wrong, so we should just burn down all the forrests, kill all the endangered species, and suck the planet dry as part of our mandate to fill and subdue the earth, right?
Of course not.
God did not give us a mandate to suck the earth dry. That would be counter-productive, not least of all to ourselves. Instead, he called us to be stewards of creation. In Genesis, you’ll note that Adam is created "to tend and keep" the garden. He was the gardener of Eden. What was true of him as the head of the human race is true of the race as a whole: We we are called to steward–manage–the planet and the life forms and resources it contains. The material creation does have an orientation to the service of man (CCC 353), but this does not remove man’s responsibility to wisely steward the life and resources God has created (CCC 337 ff).
The problem for many Christians today who would like to find good environmental stewardship groups is that so many of the groups that are out there have been taken over by one form or another of environmental whackiness–even many Christian groups.
With that in mind, I was very pleased recently to renew my acquaintance with the Presbyterian author and scholar, E. Calvin Beisner, who is an old friend. (In fact, it was he who set me right on the birth control issue back when I was a Presbyterian.)
As part of our conversation, Cal informed me about a group he is involved with, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, which seeks to bring responsible stewardship principles to the discussion of the environment, without veering off into the extremes of environmental whackiness.
The ISA is truly an interfaith group, as can be seen from looking at a list of its formal advisors, which includes priests, ministers, rabbis, and professionals in a variety of fields.
I’m particularly appreciative of the group’s emphasis on managing the environment in a way that does not keep developing countries from developing. It is contrary to human nature and love of neighbor to confine millions of human beings to squalor and poverty in the name of perserving environmental goals that are formulated without respect to the human costs of achieving them. A balance must be found that harmonizes the need for preserving environmental resources with the needs of our fellow human beings, and this group is seeking to help in that effort.
I’d therefore invite you to
CHECK IT OUT.
Dueling Alliances:
The “Evangelical Climate Initiative” vs. The “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance”
Watch as these two groups duke it out on Friday, October 27, at 6:00PM on Pay-per-View (PPV).
Contact you cable or satellite provider today!
You mean we shouldn’t dismiss things like GMOs just because they sound weird, even if they have potential to alleviate hunger in 3rd world countries? That’s radical man.
Apparently there is a PBS documentary tonight (Oct 11) on Moyers on America called “Is God Green?”: Is God Green
So, he worships the Green Man or the Green Goddess? (oh, wait, that is a salad dressing. . .)
Sounds like Moyers. He’s not exactly a friend of the Faith unless he’s changed.
Let us not forget that we are not in a closed system, and not limited to known mineral and energy reserves on Sol 3.
Starvation is nearly always due to intentional government policies, these past 100 years, and not due to a lack of food grown on this planet.
Global Warming is probably not happening, and almost certainly not anthropogenic. We are still significantly short of the Medieval Climatic Optimum, and there are signs of -cooling-.
Oil reserves appear to be slowly recharging, in keeping with the *petro*leum theory of the orgin of oil, and the deep, hot, biosphere model.
For less than a third of the cost of the occupation in Iraq (they are finally getting around to thinking of partitioning the non-nation, which paleo-cons said was the thing to do right after we caught Sadam, and then get out), we could be completely energy independent, either from breeder reactors that use current, rather than 40 year old, designs, and/or powersats.
While America consumes a “disproportionate” amount of the planet’s wealth and resources, we also create a disproportionate amount. Possibly greater than our consumption, as Americans and America give more to the poor in other lands than any other nation.
We are a very long way from perfect, but we do need to be careful not to believe everything we read in the European press.
Beisner is a good antidote to this. Was it he or one of his colleagues who wrote _Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators_ in answer to Ron Sider’s Marxist/Quaker (strange synthesis, I know) screed?
What bothers me most about all the environmental scare stories is the media hype pushing so much of it. The National Geographic magazine–in line with its new policy of the more sensational the
better- had a horrific hurricane scare story featured on the cover of its August, ’06 issue. This was hand-in-glove with hysterical media hype across the board from news channels to newspapers, etc. This year was going to make last years Katrina hurricane season look like child’s play.
But, brother, were all the scare stories way off base. It was one of the mildest hurricane seasons on record. BUT where are the apologies for all their ignorant, sensationalist hype that actually cost some companies billions. I have seen virtually no analyses of the hurricane season that wasn’t ( especially as far as the mainland is concerned). They were GROSSLY wrong and refuse to take responsibility for their hype or even talk about it.
Consequently, the public can’t be blamed for taking the attitude–“Oh, Shut Up! You environmental scare mongers. You don’t even have the integrity to admit when you are wrong. So who can trust you.”
Besides-as far as global warming is concerned–some scientists claim it may be as beneficial as negative. But all the media hypes is the negative. That is because it “sells newspapers” and fills the treasuries of environmental groups.
It’s not true that all the media hype is negative. As Al Gore points out in “An Inconvenient Truth”, about half of articles on global warming in the (US) popular press are skeptical of it. The problem is that by the time we know for sure who’s right, it will be too late.
For my part, I felt convinced by the evidence that Gore offered in that film (however off the wall he may be on other subjects), particularly the statistics he provided, e.g. the ten hottest summers on record have all been within the last fourteen years.
The global warming skeptics seem to me not to argue entirely honestly. Sometimes they say “that global warming stuff is all a myth” and dismiss environmentalists as nuts (while drawing on some pretty nutty sources themselves to suppport the myth-assertion). At other times, they say “well, global warming could also have beneficial effects” as if to admit that it is a reality. Well, I don’t find the prospect of dried-up lakes and melting ice-caps beneficial. I also think Catholics could damage their witness by not addressing this problem more.
As a Traditionalist, I’m not convinced the industrial revolution was the best thing since sliced bread anyway.
Nuremberg style trials proposed for global warming skeptics
What’s next? I think the 20th century has been one of the most closed minded ever (and the 21st didn’t start much better…). There’s no excuse for so much stupidity… God have mercy on us.
I would reccomend reading ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ by Lomborg. Although I don’t buy everything he states, he at least has hard numbers to back up his assertions that global warming is not the impending doom that some people would have us believe. I am a firm believer in the idea that we need to be good stewards of our environment, but I hate it when I have to listen to gloom and doom scenarios without hard facts. Also, if Mr. Gore is so afraid of global warming why does he live in a 10,000 sqft mansion? In addition to a 4,000 sqft home in VA? Doesn’t he think that throws off some serious emmisions and waste? Also, why does he fly around in private jets, which pollute more in an hour than an automobile in a year? Has he put in solar panels in his house? Is his home ‘green’? I guess what is good for us is not good for the all of the politicians and celebrities that run around telling us the world is falling apart.
One could also read Crichton’s ilumminating novel _State of Fear_ which is heavily salted with hard facts and graphs.
Considering that the volcano in the Phillipines, several years back, spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in just one eruption than man has in the entire time he has trod this planet, I have a hard time believing that we make any sinificant contribution to global warming(assuming that it is occuring). It seems to me to be akin to saying that spitting in the ocean increases the chances of flooding.
Bill is a scientist too, amazing
Yes!
A reasonable, clear-headed approach to global warming. I was SO disappointed when Rick Warren joined a bunch of “Eangelical” leaders who jumped on the global warming bandwagon. I ranted about it on my blog. I was livid.
Now here is a group of religious leaders who arent’ snowed by liberal claptrap.
Thanks, Jimmy, for pointing this out.
Er, that’s Evangelical.
Don’t feel bad, Tim. I just re-read my last comment, and I have to say that, due to our fallen nature, we do make a lot of “sinificant” contributions.
(Proofread, proofread, proofread!)
I still trust the general body of scientists studying the matter that global warming is happening and humans are a major cause of it. In fact I really liked Trad-Con’s post, except that I havn’t seen Gore’s movie and don’t really care what he has to say on any issue.
Still, it is great to see that there are groups like this out there, and to recognize at least one familiar name on the list (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus). Catholics should really be leaders on the issue of conservation and sustainablility.
Of course we must steer clear of the irrational extremists that there are in any movement, but I think some of the more anti-environmentalist posts here are scandalous and detrimental to evangelization, not to mention extremely bone-headed at times.
Mr. Akin, I would encourage you to please reconsider your position about global warming. I agree with Trad-Con that we shouldn’t ignore global warming.
I think that some of the global warming skeptics are way too flexible in their reasoning. The Stewardship Initiative argued that limiting greenhouse emissions will hurt the poor. But one of the main reasons given by the Administration against adopting the Kyoto Protocol was that it did not impose the same restrictions on developing nations as on developed nations. So on one hand it hurts the poor, but on the other hand it doesn’t hurt the poor enough?
I’m also kind of skeptical about the “Stewardship Initiative.” If they say that protecting the environment is a Christian duty, but then argue against efforts to protect the environment, what good is that? Do they have a counter-proposal or are they just reacting?
I used to think that the environment was less important than human needs. But we can’t meet human needs without a healthy environment. It’s true that some environmentalists hold non-Christian viewpoints. But that doesn’t mean they’re all total liars. Probably the reason some of them don’t like Christians is because they think Christians hate the environment. So it’s just a vicious cycle — I don’t like you because you don’t like me because…
I was thinking back over my post and I wanted to apologize if I was too harsh. I didn’t mean to imply that your friend Mr. Beisner or the other members of that group were bad people. I sincerely apologize if I implied that. Their theology is much better than Al Gore’s.
But I think — even though I wish it weren’t true — that his grasp of the science is better than theirs. I think that Africa and the Third World should be able to use whatever fuels they need, but we in America really have to work on renewable energy.
Stephen Hawking recently explained his views this way: “The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can.”
I’m not saying that he’s 100% right — but if he’s even 10% right then we have a problem, and for the sake of future generations we have to do something. I’m really worried about it myself.
Thanks very much for your consideration!
— END OF MONOLOGUE —
Sputnik, what’s your problem?
John Dziak hit it right on the nose, except that from what I have read the Kyoto Protocol is really more of a global wealth redistribution treaty than anything that will prevent global warming. I don’t like international bodies telling anyone what to do anyway, but we, the United States, need to take this problem seriously.
I wouldn’t actually worry though(in the literal, emotional sense) about something you can’t personally prevent. Just do what you can to help the environment and increase people’s awareness of the problem, and leave the rest to God.