Saving the Planet

“Saving the Planet”

The catch-cry “Save the Planet” is a favourite of environmental activists and is so often repeated that ordinary people are starting to echo it without critical thought.

What nonsense. Apart from sci-fi movies where the bad guys manage to blow a planet to smithereens saving a planet has no meaning. Ah! To be sure there is climate change or global warming as it used to be called. But how exactly would that “save” the Earth? If you are a dedicated environmentalist please bear with me writing what must seem the worst of blasphemies for a moment – after all if you read the last post remember that rejecting new ideas because they conflict with the ones you have previously accepted is not a good thing.

Now planet Earth, on our present scientific understanding has been a ball of condensing incandescent gas, had its surface totally covered with ice, and most things in between. In what way is preventing or slowing a few degrees of heating “saving it”?

Ah, not the “planet” itself but “life on the planet”? Well once again any aspiring polymath should be rolling around the floor laughing! The scene we enjoy is the result of what I have been told was the biggest environmental disaster in Earth's history: the release of oxygen into the atmosphere which killed off near all of life on earth at that time. Then there was whatever cause the extinction of the big dinosaurs (I am told birds are the descendants of some little dinosaurs). In the Permian period the “great extinction event” killed off 95% of all life. But life on Earth went on – indeed it flourished. Then as well there were the five – yes five - ice ages scientists have recorded, with inter-glacial warm periods. Geologists reckon that in the late Paleocene period the temperature was about 8deg. C. greater than at present. Really all this makes a few degrees here or there seem child's play – and who knows despite any anthropogenic influence earth may be about to enter another cold patch or even ice age!

OK enough “heresy”! My point is that if people have, or are unthinkingly repeating ideas relating to climate change based on a mystical view of “planet Earth” or even the “life on earth” as a god or gods then these aught to be firmly rejected!

What then really does matter? Humans. From a Biblical perspective only humans were “the image of God” only humans in Genesis are described as having God breath his life into them, thus setting them quite apart from animals. The Son of God took human nature in lived among us and died in order to reconcile us humans to God.

Granted other things have some though lesser importance. Some theologians point out that in ancient near east pagan religions an “image” was thought of as the visible and present representation of the absent deity. On this basis mankind as the image of God would mean something like humans being appointed as God's representatives to manage the earth and its creatures. The “rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and every living creature that moves on the ground” (Gen 1.28) is in the same vein. Naturally with authority comes responsibility and additionally “ruling” would be in accordance with God's moral character – not mankind's fallen and sinful nature!

So a proper response to climate change is not necessarily trying to prevent it – that may even be like King Canute trying to stop the tide – but to work at achieving the best outcome for all humans.

Before one responds “Oh but we are!” let me give a counter-example. Australia has large coal reserves. India wants to build a large new mine here to get coal for its expanding electricity needs. Environmental activists are thwarting this plan on the grounds that to prevent climate change the coal must stay in the ground. But millions of people in India will be trapped in terrible poverty if new coal fired (because they are big and cheaper than alternatives) power stations are not built. So to look after humans in general and not just allow well fed and affluent Western activists feel self righteous the coal should be mined.

Even in the West itself we are in danger of crippling our economies in the name of “sustainability”. This suits the Luddite mentality of activists but it is not looking after humans – in the West and worldwide. Whatever ill effects come from climate change, human ingenuity, technology and money can be used to alleviate. Crippling our economies may be the global equivalent of olden days doctors bleeding their patients!

Finding the best way forward for humanity is being obscured by a number of factors

Global Warming has become an industry – too many funded research positions, manufacturing products like expensive wind turbines and school syllabus are dependent on current thinking to allow for contrary facts to be allowed to emerge

The “save the planet” dogma has become for many a religion – and woe betide anyone who challenges ardent religious beliefs; People innately feel guilty. Having rejected the real cure for guilt – repentance and forgiveness through Christ – many in today's “post Christian” society find relief for their guilt, and even a warm glow of self righteousness in environmental activism and so are quite addicted to it.

Human psychology: We accept the first premise we hear, often without critically examining it, but we then put our blinkers on and employ every critical faculty to defend it from contrary evidence. Thus anyone questioning the “party line” is immediately howled down as a “climate denier”, any research news is censored, anything we do hear that conflicts with what we have been told is rejected.

My bottom line is that the West, to itself rise and also to take poor countries with it, needs to reform its response to climate change.

This, considering what I have said here, and the fact that many churches and people who profess Christianity are so caught up in the bad aspects of the present response, and indeed so addicted that they preach Jesus as a means to this end rather than the one true End in himself and only Saviour, that only a radical and grass roots revival of Christianity will suffice. The political change is, as I said at the very beginning of this series only a spin-off, a very beneficial spin-off but not the real “end” of a revival of Christianity.