Christians and Climate Change

The other day I heard about some Christians who were sceptics about climate change. Not having had a chance to talk to them myself, I am not sure of the grounds for their objections, but I have come across it before and online. As I am teaching a course on ethics at the moment, it led me to wonder why the case for action on climate change isn't compelling for some people - and especially for those who describe themselves as Christians.

At the same time, I have seen plenty of negative comments on social media from the more right-wing accounts (which sometimes purport to represent the views of "Christian" England) about those protesting about climate change. It is also remarkable how often Greta Thunberg triggers white males of about my age into rage and abuse, but that's a different blog post.

If I was taking my students through this issue, we might consider some of the classic approaches to ethical questions and see how they might shed some light on all of this. Here goes.

Most green campaigners put the issue of climate change and global warming at the forefront of their campaigns, headlines and literature. If we don't act now on CO2 emissions, the result will be that the planet warms, the weather will change and it will have catastrophic effects, including sea levels rising, droughts, loss of food supply, habitable land and much more. This is, of course, based on the fact that the earth can sustain our life due to the "greenhouse effect"  - a blanket of CO2 which prevents temperature extremes both high and low. Shifting the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere through human activity will produce devastating results.

At this point we have to say that the overwhelming consensus of science is that this is a correct analysis. The exact outcomes still have some uncertainty, and the resulting weather may be counter-intuitive, such as more rain and even colder weather in some parts of the globe. However, the case has been made over and over again, and is very widely accepted.

So why do some vociferous people reject it and try to seek out the scientists who might wish to cast doubt? One reason might be vested interest, of course. Decisive and effective action will be costly financially and possibly politically too. It also has to be said that there are some Christians with very particular views about the end of the world who don't see this world as worth worrying about, as it will all end soon and not be here, so its material welfare is irrelevant.

However, I think a big factor feeding into climate scepticism is that the arguments for action on climate change are, as we have seen, usually based on predictions of what is going to happen. In ethics, this kind of argument is referred to as a consequentialist approach. This is a way of thinking that decides the right or best course of action, based on the anticipated outcomes from various choices. Put simply you look at option A and B. Option A means X will happen; option B means Y will happen. X and Y are then compared as to which is expected to produce the most happiness / harmony / love  (depending on the version of this approach you are using) and the best anticipated outcome determines the best choice. As you might already suspect, this can lead to some debatable "means to an end" justifications for certain actions or choices. Just think about the reasons for using nuclear weapons in World War 2, which stated that however awful, they were better than the alternatives.

However, in everyday life, we make choices on this basis all of the time - probably without even thinking about it very much. But when it comes to big issues, you can start to see the difficulty. How do we know that the predictions of outcomes are accurate? Life is not a simple mechanical machine, where a force in one place produces a movement or action somewhere else in a predictable and repeatable way. The complexities of human societies, weather systems, economies, etc. mean that such arguments are always open to challenge. And so, social media continues to be full of people convinced that climate change generated by human activity is a hoax or even a conspiracy, whatever the much better-informed scientists say.

However, for me as a Christian, this kind of argument is not the only - or even the most compelling - argument to be concerned for the planet and to be taking action. I believe the scientific case for action on climate change has been completely convincing for years, but that isn't they key point here. Even if the scientists were wrong, Christians should still be deeply concerned about the planet and making choices to conserve, recycle, and consume less. 

The starting point for this is the notion of stewardship. There is a repeated theme throughout the Bible that human beings are not the 'owners' of the earth, but stewards. The resources we have are entrusted into our care. I don't believe the creation accounts in Genesis literally, but they give a sense and definition to the relationship that humanity should have with the rest of the created order. As a poet put it in Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it". As such we should have a sense of accountability for how creation has been treated at the hands of humanity, and a sense of responsibility to tend and nurture it, irrespective of what the graphs and thermometers say. (The ethics folks might suggest this is a deontological argument - deon is Greek for duty or obligation.)

Using the same kind of argument, Christians also have an obligation to their neighbour. The parable of the Good Samaritan shows Jesus giving the notion of neighbour a much wider definition than people who are like "us" or who are simply in close proximity relationally or socially. Many of our global neighbours are already experiencing climate change in ways we haven't seen first hand in the UK. Protecting the climate will protect some of the poorest and most vulnerable people. It is a sad irony that the very people who fulminate most about migration to the UK are also often those who question climate change or scorn those who protest about it, not realising that lack of action is highly likely to prompt huge migrations of people in future decades. But I'm drifting into consequences there, so I'll move on...

A second strand to consider is the notion of being a consumer. Living in a western society, it is very difficult not to be a large consumer of goods, energy and even food. A tension I have often discussed with Christian friends has been about finding the right balance between continuing to play a constructive part in society (rather than go completely off-grid) and yet somehow challenge the prevailing culture of ever-growing consumption. What are we being shaped into by the trends and expectations of our world if all we live for is to have more stuff? Surely there has to be an aspect of the Christian life which a the very least hankers after something more enduring - what Jesus in the Gospels calls treasure in heaven? I haven't resolved that for myself, but engaging with the question is important, as can help to stop us simply being carried by the tide. (Asking questions like this starts to bring us into an area called virtue ethics - what sort of people do we want to be or become? What choices, practices and lifestyle might continue to express, reinforce and embed that different set of priorities?)

Furthermore, for people with a religious perspective, the extinction of species and the decimation of habitat by human activity should always be a concern. If the diverse beauty and wonder of the universe is a manifestation of divine creativity, then anything that degrades it has to be challenged. It is not only a breach of the responsibility entrusted to us, but it is a kind of denial of the image of that infinitely creative God planted within us. 

I do believe the science - it's actually been around for several decades. I do think that we are on the brink of inflicting irreversible damage to the climate, and I support urgent action to address it here and around the world. But even if I'm wrong on that, there are strong theological and ethical arguments for making choices personally and communally to limit consumption, care for the environment, and make choices that reduce the impact and footprint we leave on the wonderful planet that has been entrusted to us. 

Climate Soapbox

Enjoyed this rant from David Mitchell. His premise is that if there was even a small chance of something bad happening, you'd take precautions - e.g. product recalls or insurance against theft, so why not have the same attitude to climate change. Anyway, here it is in his own words:

Oil, coal and climate denial

Image via WikipediaThe recent events at the the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors in Japan are restarting the debate about the future of our global energy supply. I live near Heysham nuclear power station, where a third reactor is a possibility for the future. I suspect a reassessment is taking place right now about if and when it may ever happen.

Also, over recent months, there has a been a steady stream of people denying that climate change is attributable to emissions generated by human activity. I remember being alerted to the parallels of CO2 levels and climate as long ago as the late 70s in New Scientist, and it seems to me to make the most sense of the available data.

But even if one could prove that climate change was entirely natural and in no way related to fossil fuels and flatulent livestock, surely there are reasons to change our dependance on fossil fuels? The need for security and stability of supply must make us look to alternatives to oil, gas and even coal. The problem is that the much heralded revival of the nuclear option to solve the energy gap has now been questioned.

It seems to me that the UK needs much more focus on energy conservation, and renewable generation for reasons beyond the 'green' (much as I agree with them). If we were really serious about it, then we would be seeing a huge expansion in solar, wind and water-based generation just for self-interest. And relatively modest investments and incentives could provide jobs and long-term consumption savings. For example, if solar panels were mandatory on all new buildings, they could be fitted for much lower costs than retro-fitting, and the ongoing benefits would be substantial for the occupants. But where is the drive from government?

Meanwhile, I look at our church roof. Like most churches, we are east-west aligned, with a south-facing pitched roof, perfect for solar generation. That would be a start - every parish church in the land becomes a little power station. I bet most churches could generate more than they use. It's just the problem of getting English Heritage to let us put PV panels on them...

Climate Change

I suspect that we will tired of climate change news before the Copenhagen summit ends. It hasn't been helped by the frenzy around the UEA email leaks which implied some scientists might be fiddling the figures. At least it seems that the major industrialised nations agree that something needs to be done.

As I was saying on Sunday, I remember reading about CO2 levels and their impact on the greenhouse effect back in the 1970s in New Scientist. They expected levels to rise as emissions grew and forests which absorb carbon were felled. The additional CO2 acting as extra 'insulation' for the earth. This so-called greenhouse effect is the process that actually keeps our climate temperate, so it's a good thing. It guarantees our survival. The debate raging today is how much influence the emissions from human activity have on the overall picture.

My own view has always been that there will be natural fluctuations in climate, but overlaying that are substantial changes due to human activity. It seems inconceivable that the temperature and weather changes are completely unrelated to the vast increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (and the methane and other gases from farming and industry)

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels means those resources will be available for much longer for essential use, the pollution from them will be hugely reduced, climate change will be slowed, and side effects such as acidification of the sea will be mitigated (good news for shell-fish!) I just hope that our leaders have the courage to go for ambitious targets that will not only reduce CO2 emissions, but will produce a significant shift in the way we think about how economies should develop and grow.