Posted on 25 Nov 2009 at 6:18pm By GavinoAs Americans thank God for their pilgrim forefathers’ decision to escape religious persecution and build a new world on these shores, Christians are being challenged on multiple aspects of their lives. Defining compassion, for example, is becoming increasingly difficult in America. President Obama is set to announce that the United States will cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 17 per cent by 2020. Is this a policy of compassion that Christians should embrace, or will it needlessly cause increased social strife?
Perhaps this is not a unique conundrum. In 1798, clergyman Thomas Malthus warned that a growing world population would lead to starvation. Mankind, he argued, would not be able to feed itself. Drastic steps were needed.
Is global warming a new religion?
If Malthus had been correct, his advocacy of limits to the size of families subsequently might have been widely viewed as ethical and compassionate. Instead, man’s ingenuity led to improvements in the efficiency of food production that outpaced population growth. The disaster that Malthus foresaw never emerged.
All of which exemplifies the difficulty that comes from intellectualizing on social issues. In retrospect, the policies advocated by Malthus were cruel rather then compassionate because those who followed his advice were deprived of the families they wanted. Life was undermined.
This experience illustrates the difficulties well-meaning religious leaders can get into when they stray from religious teachings and preach on politics.
Unfortunately, the Orthodox Christian Church has jumped into the modern equivalent of Malthus’ alarmism, the global warming issue. This is not only unwise based on the scientific facts but entirely misses the political point with the environmentalist movement.
Religious leaders need to recognize that, in the West, global climate alarmism has become a competing religion to Christianity. It provides an alternative phenomenon to fear that is far bigger than any individual, it instills in believers a frugal way of existing and it requires strict adherence from believers and non-believers alike. This new religion appeals particularly to secularists or anyone not following a conventional religion. It is taught in schools and living within its confines is enforceable by governments.
According to the Orthodox Christian Church, God and the global environment share similar spiritual qualities. Life is sacred so therefore everything that sustains it is sacred too. We must all focus on the survival of the planet for the common good.
But this is sacrilegious. The planet should not be worshipped in the same way as the Creator. The planet was created by God for mankind. The planet should be respected and pollution should be minimized, but it is not on a par with God.
And as political commentator Rush Limbaugh has argued, it is counter-intuitive to believe that God would have created the world in such a way that would allow mankind’s very development to destroy it.
Politicians around the globe have declared man-made global warming to be a fact, a problem and something they can solve. All three assertions are open to challenge.
That global warming has occurred is not disputed, but the significance about the cooling phase now underway is being downplayed. Pointedly, data showing the cooling has been systematically suppressed by United Nations researchers in England.
Neither is it disputed that carbon dioxide emissions have increased. But it remains far from clear to what extent this can be linked to climate change.
And even if carbon dioxide really is the culprit, many believe that drastic reductions in emissions would not fix the problem. So why try if this is not going to help? After all, the social welfare costs are enormous, which is why many developing countries balk at the prospect.
One of the best ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, of course, is to limit population growth. This is now being talked about in intellectual circles and brings us full circle with Malthus. Environmentalists tend to the view that populations must be reduced if the planet is to be ‘saved’. People are the problem.
Global warming has become a means to regulate and control the lives of people across the planet. It is not about compassion. Religious leaders should be cautious about embracing a cause that, in the name of life, actually advocates against mankind and the rights that were given to man by God.
.png&w=16&h=16&zc=T&q=95)
Religious Leaders are being seduced by climate change fundamentalism in the same way as politicians. The ideas of both are often only half thought through. For example will the increased poverty caused by the cost of CO2 reduction actually be more detrimental than the effects of climate change? – Indeed we could have both if the science is flawed and CO2 reduction does not halt the warming. Only yesterday, the UK government (health and climate change departments) showed this short-sightedness by appearing to endorse the policy proposed in the Lancet of killing off one third of the UK livestock. The argument was that this would help the planet by reducing methane from the animals and also (believe it or not!) help people’s health by reducing the amount of meat they eat. Having had government ministers endorse this as an excellent idea in the morning, by afternoon it became clear they had forgotten to consult the department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This department then pointed out that 1) Farmers would not exactly be happy that the government had just effectively proposed wiping out a third of their livestock and income. 2) In a globalised world, reducing meat supply in the UK, rather than improving health, is more likely to cause an increase of imports from South America increasing the destruction of forest to make way for farming and increasing the transport CO2 emissions to get the meat to the UK. God save us and the planet from politicians and religious leaders!!!
@Alastair
I have a compromise solution for the UK – Eat more milk fed veal! This does 2 things 1) by killing cows when they’re only babies prevents them spewing a lifetime of methane 2) keeping them penned up and drinking milk will minimize the methane emission from each calf. Economically farmers would benefit since veal is typically more expensive than regular corn fed beef and since the calves will be penned farmers can raise more calves per acre!
There is an answer to every problem if you just sit down with a pint or two and think things through.
Religion, or having a common belief and dis-allowing all other beliefs is what keeps the economy going. It’s worked for all of mankind through fighting and war. We’d rather be dead than ‘forced’ to live any other way than the way we’ve chosen. Of course, if people were open minded, we could live freely by simply being considerate of others. What good is that, though? No one would have big power and be able to prove anything. Being an environmentalist means I can say “I’m saving Mother Earth!”… When in reality, the Earth made you.. and you’re only a short time from going back to it. Replace ‘Earth’ with ‘God’ or whatever deity you choose and it’s all the same.
We’re here for a short time. Enjoy it, try to get along and be open to why you’re here in the first place.