“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.
