Friday, June 9, 2017

Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care

They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."  -- Genesis 11: 4

Ratification of the Paris Agreement
In 2015, President Obama and leaders of nearly 200 other nations met near Paris, France to constitute the World Climate Change Conference (WCCC).  Their mission was to establish goals to reduce global carbon emissions in favor of renewable energy sources.  The conference drafted the Paris Agreement which was entered into force in November, 2016.

The Paris Agreement, or Paris Accord, calls for each nation to submit its own climate-action plan for reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG’s) in favor of adopting clean energy policies (e.g. solar- and wind-powered energy generation).  The Obama proposal committed the USA to reduce emissions by 26-28% by 2025 as referenced to 2005 levels when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of CO2.

By an executive order, President Obama included the United States in the agreement in 2015, but did not submit his proposal to Congress for ratification.  Absence of congressional ratification would leave the door open for any future president to “cancel” any responsibilities of the US to the agreement.  On June 1, President Trump stepped through that open door. 

The president announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He summarized his decision for the US to exit the agreement with these words:

As president, I have one obligation and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord. And time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country.

President Trump’s announcement to withdraw the US from the Paris Accord unleashed yet another sea of controversy among the many surrounding the policies of his administration.  Like many issues facing the world today, global climate science is layered with complexities.  The politics and economics surrounding the climate science add to the complexity.  Therefore, I do not pretend to be an expert on this multidisciplinary topic.  Nor will I try to offer the last word.

For purposes of this article, I will affirm four claims that advocates use to justify taking action to address global warming, or climate change:
(1) Global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other GHG’s have generally increased during the last century.
(2)  Human-generated (anthropogenic) GHG’s contribute to the increase in atmospheric GHG’s 
(3)  A correlation exists between the increase in GHG’s and increasing average global temperatures.
(4) Increased atmospheric GHG’s from both natural and human sources are partly responsible for the increase in average global temperature. 

Although I affirm the above claims, it is not clear to me that human efforts to address climate change are headed in the right direction.  Therefore, what follows is a brief sketch of my concerns.  Although these concerns are all interrelated, I will present them under three categories, scientific, geopolitical, and biblical.

SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS

From the scientific perspective, I do not believe the four claims above are so strongly supported as to be called “settled science” as many climate alarmists have asserted.  Therefore, I will offer the several points, each accompanied with some additional sources to read and consider.

Steady increase in CO2 (decreases in summer) 
(a)  Multiple Contributing Factors:  There are valid reasons for questioning how much human activities actually contribute to the total annual increases in GHG’s.  A report by G. Wang (2017) suggests that sun spot activity and planetary motion with possible connection to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle may also contribute significantly to climate change. Changes in cloud forcing, atmospheric components such as water vapor, and regional land use changes should be considered in addition to anthropogenic GHG’s.

(b)  Climate Models:  Some respected climate scientists question the predictive accuracy of climate models and hence the degree of urgency of our response to climate change.  Dr. Richard Lindzen, respected atmospheric physicist, has criticized climate models. But, he has also contributed excellent research in efforts to improve climate models.  Dr. Lindzen submitted a public letter to President Trump with hundreds of scientists as signatories, urging the president to revoke “the U.S. signature under the 1992 treaty signed in Rio which became a cornerstone for the subsequent Kyoto and Paris treaties.” 

According to Cal Beisner, founder and spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, writing in the Washington Times, scientific evidence is mounting that climate models are overstating carbon dioxide’s warming effect. Beisner cites University of Alabama climatologist John Christy who testified in Congress on March 29 saying “the models call for warming of 0.389 oF per decade.  But weather balloon measurements find only 0.2 oF, satellite measurements 0.211 oF and re-analyses of data from major weather centers around the world 0.221 oF. Observed warming is about one-half to three-fifths what the models predict.”

(c)  Ethics Under Pressure: Climate scientists are under considerable peer pressure as well as pressure from research funding sources and from those in the environmental movement, thus making the climate science community vulnerable to breaches in ethics.  Richard Lindzen whom I cited above has testified in the U.S. Senate that he “personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."  For a more recent review of ethical concerns in science, see “The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics and Accountability.”

GEOPOLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Besides my scientific concerns, I have geopolitical concerns about the complex web of interrelationships among international leaders, scientists, lobbyists, politicians, industries, NGO’s, and climate activists.  The environmental concerns, motivations, and intentions of each party rest upon the belief that there is a credible scientific case for climate change.  But, as I have stated, climate science is not “settled science.”  Furthermore, we ought to ask whether nearly 200 nations would gather at the table and sign onto an agreement to limit their use of fossil fuels simply because they are concerned about climate warming.  Could most of the gathered leaders have come with an open purse waiting to be filled?

(a)  Paris Agreement Goal
is to limit global temperature increase to 1.5o above pre-industrial levels.  This goal is to be achieved by encouraging the 195 nations that have signed the agreement to pledge to reduce fossil fuel usage in favor of renewable energy—largely solar and wind power.  However, a study published in Nature, in 2016, claimed that the combined national pledges will be insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise "well below 2 °C." The Washington Times has published computations by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank.  Lomborg estimated the impact of the Paris Agreement using the assumptions of climate change advocates about how much warming comes from CO2, and assuming all provisions of all signers were implemented.  He concluded that the Paris Agreement would “prevent only 0.306 °F of global warming by 2100.”  This fraction of 1°F is hardly a statistically significant measure of the “good” that would presumably come at a cost estimated at $739-$757 billion per year!  Lomborg summarizes the estimated cost:  All told, $924-$946 billion.  Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century…
So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100.  That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.”  Next question:  Who will come up with this kind of money?

United States takes the leadership in financial commitment.
(b)  Financing through the Green Fund:  Under the assumption that developed nations are more financially equipped than developing nations, the Paris Agreement calls for developed nations to mobilize $100 billion per year to assist developing nations in mitigating and adapting to climate change.  Based on the fact that the US funds a disproportionate amount of the annual budget in the United Nations and of NATO, both of which have treaty-binding status, it is not hard to guess who would be stuck with the lion’s share of funding for the Green Fund.  It is not clear exactly what specific programs this would fund.  Nor is it clear who would administer the programs.

Other major producers of  CO2 must reduce emissions, too.
(c)  Commitment to Paris Agreement is based not on a signed, binding treaty, but on an unbinding agreement ratified in 2016.  Therefore, it seems important that we assess the level of commitment of individual signatory nations to achieve their goals in the future within the Paris Agreement.  According to a report by the Institute for Energy Research, “the United States had the greatest share of wind and solar electricity (5.4 percent) among the 3 countries in 2015—the year of the most recent data available. China had a 3.9 percent share and India had a 3.7 percent share of wind and solar power to total electricity generation.”  On the other hand, of the three largest producers of CO2, only the United States has made significant progress in reducing emissions.  Shouldn’t Americans consider that our president might be right in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement?  After all, America has demonstrated a proven commitment to and success in reducing carbon emissions and adopting alternative energies in addition to showing good faith in contributing a generous amount up front to fund the program.  Shouldn’t we consider that the US might accomplish Paris goals on its own while saving billions that we could otherwise invest in areas of clearly demonstrated urgency in developing countries—e.g. soil conservation, sanitation, and nutrition?

(d )  Paris Agreement:  Good or Bad for the Poor? 
With billions of dollars being transferred to foreign leaders, agencies, and administrators it is clear that the Agreement will be “good” for at least some, perhaps many people, and perhaps the Earth.  But, will the millions in poverty see opportunity to better their lives?  I urge readers to research the question of whether the Paris Agreement would actually promote better access for the poor to affordable energy and opportunity. 

As one who has studied and tried to apply biblical environmental stewardship principles, I would suggest two resources that address how individual Christians and the Evangelical church ought to respond to the issue of climate change.  In 2011, the National Association of Evangelicals published “Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment” as a clear and forceful application of biblical environmental stewardship principles, particularly as they relate to the poor (Matthew 25: 36-44).  The author, Dorothy Boorse, explains that climate change will disproportionately affect the poor.  However, returning to our discussion of the Paris Agreement’s transfer of billions to developing countries, we must ask whether our tax dollars are being used most effectively when the target is to reduce a hypothetical fraction of degree of global temperature based on questionable climate model projections. 

The Cornwall Alliance offers an alternative view of how climate change policies such as the Paris Agreement may affect the poor, in an article entitled “Protect the Poor: Ten Reasons to Oppose Harmful Climate Change Policies.”  The authors argue that proposals for shifting to alternative energy sources will increase energy costs and disproportionately affect the poor who spend a higher percentage of their income on energy.  The result will be, in effect, a regressive tax—“taxing the poor at higher rates than the rich.”  Furthermore, funding for climate change programs will divert financial commitment from projects where it “could do far more good by providing pure drinking water, sewage sanitation, electrification, nutrition supplements, infectious disease control, health care, and other benefits to the world’s poor.” Beisner sees the Green Fund as yet another wrong-headed effort to help the poor.  
Placing billions of dollars in the hands of a few powerful money lenders who then pick and choose winners has historically not solved poverty, either at the national level (Think “War on Poverty.”), or international level (Think World Bank.).  Instead, the best policy for the world’s poor, the policy that will most help them rise out of poverty, is for governments to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy field (as in all others) and let free-market competition decide.

BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Since the confusion of one human language at the Tower of Babal; and, the geographic, ethnic, and cultural divergence that followed, mankind has been unable to reunite around one cause for the benefit of either humanity or the planet.  Our efforts through human reason, philosophy, the sciences, and religion have all failed, many times with the bloody defeat of a tyrannical ideologue or the collapse of a mighty empire or civilization.  Likewise, well meaning humanistic efforts to bring peace have failed.  For example, in spite of its name, billions spent, and the sincere toil of many dedicated people, the United Nations has had very limited success in bring peace and prosperity to Earth.  Therefore, I am not optimistic that trillions of dollars amassed and distributed through the Green Fund will bring “good” either to God’s creation or to the many who are forgotten either in Detroit or in Dhaka. 

However, the inspired revelation of Scripture reveals that throughout human history, God was at work to redeem us, speaking long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Hebrews 1: 1-2).  And He…upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high
…(Heb. 1: 3b) …Who also intercedes for us (Romans 8: 34b), having chosen us to be His body, set apart (sanctified), holy and acceptable to God as a beacon of His Truth to a lost and spiritually dying world.  For there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4: 12).

As evangelicals, members of Christ’s body by faith in His atoning death and resurrection, consider how to respond to environmental issues like climate change, we should not question the importance of either caring for God’s creation, or assisting the poor with an opportunity to fulfill their God-given purposes.  Rather, we ought to consider the validity of climate science claims and projections, and carefully evaluate where funds are most needed in order to do the most good for the most lives in today’s world.  In addition, we must remember that, as members of Christ’s body, the church, we are called to do “good deeds” as a means for the poor to earn their daily bread, but also to provide the “good news,” the Gospel, of the Bread of Eternal Life.  If the Christian voice within the climate change community is not spoken in loving word and deed, we are salt that is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men (Matthew 5:13).

For as the earth brings forth its sprouts,
And as a garden causes the things sown in it to spring up,
So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise
To spring up before all the nations.  
– Isaiah 61:11

Additional Reading:
1.  If you are a Christ-follower who is confused about how to "integrate" the call of God to "preach the Gospel in word and deed" with His call to stewardship of His creation, consider reading "Creation Care and Christian Character" which provides a helpful list of additional readings.

2.  Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 1 "Serving With" Our Creator -- Article #1 Biblical Foundation

3. Calling forStewardship Without a Master

Friday, June 2, 2017

God Heals Divided Hearts--then Nations

Ethnic minority rights, immigration, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights—the list of challenging issues of our day is long and troubling.  Moral and social issues that divide our nation today are issues that we are powerless to resolve without individual and corporate repentance and a calling upon God to forgive and empower us to follow His principles.  Our differences are too deeply rooted within our "heart" or "mindset." Hatred, suspicion, and misunderstandings are entrenched so deeply in our thinking that only God’s truth, mercy, and love can bring healing.  

Deeply rooted opinions about the value of human life, treatment of ethnic minorities, or our notion of what marriage and family ought to be are already being formed during pre-school years.  At the same young age, children and adolescents undergo a spiritual formation in which they succeed or fail in developing at least some understanding of a Higher Being.

Many American children and adolescents have not experienced a stable home life in which to develop a spiritually healthy foundation and faith in God.  Those who doubt or deny God’s existence also deny the authority of His inspired revelation of moral absolutes handed down in “The Bible.”  Doubters and deniers of the authority of the Bible miss out on the message of a holy God Who invites us to love and honor Him above all else and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (Matthew 22: 37-40). 

Without a spiritual foundation of objective Truth, many Americans are left to form opinions based on the loudest voices or the catchiest tweets.  Those who have not had a personal encounter with God as encouraged by genuine Christ-following people of faith have not experienced the love of God that pursues all people regardless of age, wealth, ethnic group, political affiliation, or sexual preference. 


LeBron James: hurt by racial epithet
One example of how a culture that largely dismisses God’s truth becomes locked in perpetual division and disrespect is the ongoing racial divide.  Many of us felt a small twinge of the deep hurt expressed by LeBron James when he saw the racial epithet spray-painted on his home in Los Angeles.  The hate and the hurts are still there in spite of decades of attempts to heal the racial divide following Martin L. King’s challenge not to judge “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” As the Apostle John writes, in 1 John 4:7-9,  God calls us to love one another with His love which is unconditional and all-inclusive (emphasis mine):

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.  The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.  By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

When the Jewish leaders asked Jesus to justify their lax policies on marriage and divorce, Jesus referred them to the Genesis 2 account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the first marriage which God Himself performed.  Jesus said (uppercase from Genesis 2: 20-25),

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,  and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

The objective truth of God’s supernatural creation of the first man and woman provides an indispensable foundation for understanding God’s purpose for intimate sexual relationship within marriage as taught in Scripture.  When these truths are set aside, morality becomes subjective, inconsistent, and open to increasingly depraved, frustrating, and violent behavior.  One need only remember the steady growth of the Lesbian-Gay (L-G) movement to include Bisexual, Transexual, and Questioning (together, LGBTQ) to realize the increasingly slippery slope toward “anything goes.” This moral decline is clearly described in Romans 1: 20-24 where we read that God will judge those who refuse to follow the patterns that are evident in both creation (the “natural world”) and in His Word (emphasis mine):

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Without God, the best our society can do is call for “tolerance.”  But, “tolerance” often comes to us with a subjective, one-sided definition; something like, “your beliefs must make room for mine; and by the way, get ready to give up your rights in favor of mine.”

Can Christ-followers show God's love to LGBTQ community?
The advent of June brings us to what is known by the LGBTQ movement as Pride Month.  Two out of our three previous presidents, Presidents Clinton and Obama, acknowledged LGBTQ Pride Month.  President Bush’s faith in God’s plan and pattern for heterosexual marriage kept him from supporting Pride Month during his administration.   The LGBTQ online news source, ThinkProgress, has criticized President Trump for his apparent unwillingness to recognize LGBTQ Pride Month.

Christ-followers must make clear that God’s love as shown through Christ and His atoning death on a Roman cross extends to all of His creation including to those who choose to deny His authority and benevolent plan for their lives.  As God loves all of our “neighbors” so Christ-followers are called to love their neighbor regardless of ethnic group, gender, political, or other preference.  But, in a free-speech society such as we are blessed with in America, those identifying with the LGBTQ movement have the right to express their views, but not the right to prohibit those who disagree from expressing theirs as well. 

Country Mill Farms--not so near East Lansing, Michigan
When Christ-followers refuse to engage in policies or behaviors that compromise their biblical faith, the one-sided nature of “tolerance” becomes evident.  Case in point—East Lansing, Michigan where Steve Tennes and his family, owners of Country Mill Farms, sell fruit and vegetables to all customers.  Steve also employs people who identify as part of the "LGBT community."   But Steve also has written on his Facebook page his faith position on marriage as between one man and one woman, and has refused to allow same-sex unions to be performed on his farm.

When city officials learned of Steve’s position on marriage, Country Mill Farms was immediately considered in violation of East Lansing's Human Relations Ordinance which makes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" protected classes.  So, even though Steve’s farm is clearly outside of city limits, according to LifeSiteNews , “officials created a new policy that all vendors must comply with East Lansing’s nondiscrimination laws not just while they are at the Farmer’s Market but in all of their general business practices.” 

Clearly, “tolerance” appears to have a one-sided application between the LGBTQ community and a Catholic family business that will sell produce to all customers without discrimination.  It is also clear to Steve and his family that their First Amendment right to express and act upon their personal beliefs is being infringed upon.  Thankfully, on May 4, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting religious liberty. At the signing ceremony, the president said, No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenants of their faith.  The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is currently defending the Tennes family.

Religious freedom has been such an important part of our nation’s fabric, having been established and defended by the lives and deaths of many thousands both before and after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.  Still, in spite of numerous efforts to protect religious freedom in America, no president, no court decision, and no legislation,  no matter how clear and consistent with God’s moral and social standards, can heal our divided nation.  For example, the recent election of President Trump, while resulting already in many actions that are consistent with biblical morality, has not brought unity because the moral and social differences run deep into our hearts.  Yet, Christ-followers are praying with optimism, and hopefully living lives consistent with God’s promise in 2 Chronicles 7: 14:

And My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

How About You?  Are you old enough to remember 9-11 and the first Middle East war, or even the First World War?  If so, you may remember how America responded by going to God in prayer.  Let us not be deceived now.  The threats to America both within and from without are just as great. If you have not made peace with God, please open a Bible, find a Christ-following friend that you trust, and consider the claims of Christ Who offers you forgiveness of sin and freedom from the judgment that will come to us all (Romans 3: 23; 6: 23; 8: 1; and 10: 9-17).  Then, find a Christ-centered, Bible teaching church to join so that you can grow spiritually and prepare yourself to “enjoy God forever” by following His simple command to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6: 8).

Related Articles:
Steps to Peace with God
– Your responsibility to God, and how to make peace through Christ
Life as It Ought to Be - Part 3: Set Free…to Lift Up Our Neighbor

Faith, Virtue, and Freedom—When Government Can No Longer Govern
Censoring Vocabulary, But Not Virtue
No Gun Control Without Self-Control
Individual Accountability and Spiritual Awakening