It’s Not Easy Being Green
Wrestling with both sides of the global warming debate.
Jan 5th, 2010 | By Skye Jethani | Category: Culture, Faith, Features, PoliticsConfession time. I’ve never watched An Inconvenient Truth. I’ve never read Earth in the Balance. In fact I’ve never studied the global warming issue in any depth beyond the occasional news article in Time magazine. I’m not sure this is anything to be ashamed about…I’m probably like many Americans in this regard.
But since Barack Obama has taken office and everything is now green (“green economy,” “green jobs,” “green energy,” “green cars,” and “green business”) I’ve started to actually pay attention to the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
I know what the “deniers” on the right think. Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying that humans didn’t create life on earth and therefore we cannot destroy it. He says global warming is a myth concocted by lefty scientists to scare citizens and big business into accepting more socialist governmental policies. That certainly fits his narrative of reality. But his belief that we didn’t create the earth and therefore cannot destroy it can be discredited in two words: nuclear weapons. It is true that we didn’t create life, but humanity has developed the capacity to destroy it.
While I disagree with Rush, I have to admit that I’m a bit suspicious of the Chicken Littles as well. I’m enough of a skeptic to pause when I see fear mongering used to get people to part with their cash or vote for a certain party. The Right successfully uses terrorism as their bogeyman, and it seems the Left uses global warming.
Within the church there is also a split. Some have argued that the green movement is a popularization of New Age philosophy and pantheism. This idea may border on paranoia, but there is some truth to it. As I’ve interacted with atheists / humanists in recent years it’s been amazing to see how much of their purpose and rhetoric is linked to environmental issues. Michael Crichton has employed his training as an anthropologist to show how environmentalism fits the definition of a religion in this insightful video. (More on Crichton in a minute.)
But there are many within the church, particularly among the young, who are eager to integrate environmentalism (aka, creation care) into the evangelical agenda. Part of this is to be celebrated–a new awareness of God’s concern for all of creation, a cosmic scope to the gospel, and humanity’s calling to be stewards of the earth. But one wonders if much of the energy around “creation care” within younger communities of believers is rooted in an insecure desire to be seen as relevant by the popular culture. Is it just another case of the church jumping onto the green bandwagon?
But apart from the cultural and political implications of global warming, there is still the science. Regardless of what Obama, Rush, or Bono thinks, there remains the basic and important question: is anthropogenic global warming real?
In my brief exploration of the evidence, and I am certainly no scientist, I’ve come to this conclusion: I don’t know.
I’m not going to waste my time or yours recapping all of the evidence for and against. You can read that stuff all over the web. But I do want to share one video I found particularly interesting. Best selling author Michael Crichton, who died in 2008, was lambasted when he came out as a skeptic of AGW. I was a bit surprised when I read Crichton’s opinion and watched his interview with Charlie Rose. Consider Crichton’s community… he’s a Hollywood writer and producer. He’s a self-identified Democrat and personal friend of Al Gore. He moves within circles that include the leading voices of environmentalism in the popular and political culture. In short, unlike Rush Limbaugh or other GOP/conservative leaders, Crichton had nothing to gain by questioning the science around AGW.
In this video, Crichton gives one of the most balanced perspectives I’ve yet heard about global warming. Essentially he says that global warming is real, it is likely man-made, and it should be addressed… but it’s not a crisis. In addition, there are far more devastating problems facing the world that we can solve. I encourage you to watch the video. The conversations about global warming begins at the 22 minute mark:
In conclusion, I’m still not sure what I think about global warming. I’m not willing to join the “deniers” who shout “Drill Now! Drill Here!” at rallies. But I’m not able to embrace the call for carbon caps and massive economic policies designed to protect the environment but which may also hurt the poor and underdeveloped in the world. I’m pleased to see the church broaden it’s understanding of creation and God’s work. But I’m also hesitant to encourage the cultural bandwagoning that chronically plagues evangelicals. In short, I don’t find it easy to be green.
Popularity: 78% [?]
Thanks for the thoughts. I basically agree with you. There is a lot of bad science coming at us from both sides. Example, I’ve read that the melting of the polar ice cap would have no appreciable difference on global water levels (actually makes sense, since so much of ice is under water anyway), but then it is common to hear the exact opposite as well. Also as I age (now in my 40s) I become more and more skeptical about dire predictions and purported impending scarcities. Back in the 80s there was only 70 years of oil left in the world. From what I hear, this is still the case! Aparently each generation gets 70 years of oil.
However, I think there is a important point to be made here: Whether or not we agree about global warming and whether or not there are people out there exagerating the problem because they are afraid it MIGHT be true, almost all the proposed green limitations are extremely good ideas anyway. Dirty technology has a multifaceted impact on the world God has given us to manage.
Example: I travel a lot to Mexico City. Back in the early 90 it was typical to get smog sickness when you went there (sore throat, feeling spacey, maybe nausea). Is it causing global warming? Who cares? The stuff makes you sick! Can you imagine living in that? In recent years Mexico City has instituted a whole set of laws and ordinances that have helped reduce the polution considerably. For example, based on your license plate number, there is a day of the week in which you don’t drive. Rewards for buying newer more fuel efficent cars. And those green VW taxis are also on the way out (VW engines polute about 50x more that a newer car).
So I think green is good even if the global warming question is unsettled. FYI, I hail from Bellingham, WA, one of the nation’s leaders in recycling and a very pro-green area.
Great thoughts, Rob. I agree with you. I also hail from a pro-green area (San Francisco Bay Area, although now I live in Colorado Springs which has a very different denier-to-tree-hugger ratio). I wasn’t totally sold on the green movement until I read Thomas Friedman’s book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded.” Like you, he covers several benefits to going green. Our health, certainly, but also economic and global political benefits.
I generally fall toward the Libertarian side of the political spectrum and would love to see a green economy spring up because of consumer demand alone. But, if that didn’t happen back in the ’70s when oil was scarce and expensive, it won’t happen now when oil is relatively cheap. Because of that, I support some government intervention here. I fear even saying this, because I’m afraid I’ll be stoned to death, but I wish oil in our country carried taxes similar to those in Europe. There, I said it. Just think of the innovation it would cause if the price of oil skyrocketed and never came back down! New designs, new industries, new jobs. And, of course, it would give countries in the Middle East much less control over us. It would be crippling for some people for some time, but we would all eventually rebound and be better for it. To me, the unfortunate part is that our current political system doesn’t seem to allow any serious changes to be made in any area — too many politicians indebted to too many powerful industries.
Even if deniers aren’t concerned about the health of the environment, it seems that the health of our people combined with the health of our economy and the geo-political benefits of reversing fossil fuel use should be enough to move us in a greener direction.
Hillary,
Thanks for the comments. I agree that there would be many, many benefits from becoming a less fossil fuel-dependent society…particularly less dependent on oil. No question about it. I hope no one thinks from my post that I am anti-conservation, pro-pollution, or fail to see the benefits of wise stewardship of resources.
I’m simply struggling with the hype around global warming and the prophecies of doom surrounding the issue. Fear and paranoia rarely lead to sound government policies… the knee jerk dismissal of civil liberties after 9/11 is a case in point.
As Michael Crichton said, whether you agree with his ultimate stance or not, we need to be making policy decisions based on the science and not the hysteria.
Skye
I agree with your thoughts but had not been able to articulate them so accurately. We do indeed need to making policy decisions based on science and reason not on hype and hysteria. Thanks for researching and writing this.