Here we consider an item from a group calling itself "Tearfund." They describe themselves as "a Christian relief and development agency working with a global network of local churches to help eradicate poverty." While poverty will probably never be eradicated, it would be nice to reduce the number of people in the world who have very little. Unfortunately, most of these would-be poverty eradicators have little idea of what causes poverty, and even less of an idea of what to do about it. It is to this tearful subject we turn as we consider . . .
Re-Lenting on Carbon
"Senior bishops call for carbon fast this lent"
http://www.tearfund.org, Feb. 5, 2008
In perusing Christianity Today headlines I ran across this little gem of an article. It begins with a picture, the caption of which reads, "Two of the Church of England’s most senior Bishops are today (5 February 2008) urging people to cut their carbon rather than give up chocolate this Lent."
If that strikes you as stupid, that’s only because it is.
But this is a nice, compact example of the greater stupidity that, having swept up much of the unregenerate world, has recently infected the sometimes feeble minds of much of Christendom. If the war on carbon dioxide were not such a threat to human well-being, it would be amusing. And this little piece from Tearfund well illustrates that.
"Bishop of Liverpool and Vice President of Tearfund, James Jones said, `Traditionally people have given up things for Lent. This year we are inviting people to join us in a Carbon Fast."
Why this "carbon fast"?
"Tearfund and the Bishops have launched the fast because of the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, and to protect poor communities around the world who are already suffering from the ravages of climate change."
The good bishops continue:
"It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching. The tragedy is that those with the power to do something about it are least affected, whilst those who are most affected are powerless to bring about change. There’s a moral imperative on those of us who emit more than our fair share of carbon to rein in our consumption."
It would be good to review all the evidence in this matter, but, of course, we can’t do that here. You can find some links to just the tip of the iceberg of this evidence back at the "Environmentalism Watermelon" here at The Clubhouse.
We are often told that there is a "scientific consensus" on this matter. In fact, the Tearfund people have their own "scientific advisor" who tells them, "The scientific debate about the basic issue of climate change is over. Climate change is real. Evidence for it is to be seen in every corner of the globe." This advisor’s name is Sir John Houghton, and who are we peons to question such a personage?
Every news outlet and interest group has such an "expert" who is never seriously questioned. In fact, they don’t even attempt find clarity: of course the climate is changing. The unstated assumption by Sir John is that human beings are somehow able to cause such a change.
What news outlets and interest groups usually fail to mention is that many, many scientists dissent from the current "climate change" orthodoxy. For example, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine keeps a petition, now signed by over 19,000 scientists, which reads in part:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. (
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm)Statements like that of Sir John at Tearfund - and you can find them everywhere lately - are far from unquestionable. Of course climate change is real. The climate has been in a constant state of flux as far back as we can detect. Read "The Big Chill." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html) It is from PBS’s Nova - not exactly a hotbed of anti-environmental kooks. The author explains how and why the earth has warmed and cooled over thousands of years, none of which has any connection to human activity. Or read about the facts and myths about global warming at ICECAP. (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths) There you can learn little interesting facts such as, "Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect."
Have you ever heard of the Medieval Warming Period between 800 and 1300 AD? Much of the world was several degrees warmer than today. People grew wine grapes in England, figs in Germany, assorted crops in Greenland. Does that sound like a bad thing to anyone? Carbon Dioxide is an essential part of the very cycle of life. In fact, given the benefits of increased CO2, I think we all have a Christian duty to produce as much of it as possible - and although I like to make jokes, this is not one.
Did you know that there is legitimate doubt as to whether CO2 causes warming, or warming causes more CO2? Ice core samples show that increased CO2 levels consistently follow temperature increases. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&NR=1 - It will be well worth your time to go to the web and watch this video from the Heartland Institute!)
The Tearfund people and their kin often propose silly little things like the "carbon fast." One detail of this fast is that:
"Participants are asked to begin the Carbon Fast by removing one light bulb from a prominent place in the home and live without it for 40 days - as a constant visual reminder during Lent of the need to cut energy. On the final day of the Carbon Fast, people are encouraged to replace the missing bulb with an energy-saving bulb. Over its lifetime that one bulb will save 60kg of carbon dioxide per year and up to £60."
Saving money is fine. But do these Tearfunders realize that these "energy-saving" bulbs contain mercury - a very toxic substance?
Unfortunately, you will find that facts and reason usually have very little influence on environmentalists. For most environmentalists, environmentalism is an excuse for governmental control of human economic behavior. That’s why environmentalism is a watermelon - green on the outside, but red on the inside. That red is the red of socialism/communism.
The real tragedy of all this is that the cost of mandatory carbon controls - and those would not be just for Lent - would hurt the poorest people in the world most of all. What we must understand is that hard-core environmentalists do not care about that. In fact, they would welcome it.
Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics reveals a dirty little secret of environmentalism when he writes, "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’"
Things like carbon emission restrictions are simply part of this program. Perhaps the bishops and the Tearfund people are not aware of all this. If so, their ignorance is inexcusable. (An aside: This is something well worth remembering when you vote: candidates who want to limit CO2 emissions want to limit human well-being. If they don’t know this, they are idiots who do not deserve your vote. If they do know it, they are fiends who would be comfortable in the company of Hitler and Stalin.)
In conclusion, one thing that is certain is this: the only beneficial reduction of CO2 emissions would come if environmentalists would stop breathing.
* Kent B. True is the alter ego of one Harold N. Orndorff, Jr. He is campus minister for the Christian Student Fellowship at Northern Kentucky University, and has taught college and seminary courses in the fields of apologetics, philosophy, ethics, and logic. Contact him to compliment or complain at hnoii@hotmail.com.