Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks

Most of us would think nothing of standing beneath a huge cliff overhang.  Some of us have even camped overnight in the “shelter” of an overhang.  However, we might be wary of standing or camping there if a huge fallen tree had precariously angled itself against the cliff edge.  Would you take that risk?

Our assessment of the level of danger might change when we factor in both the cliff and the fallen tree.  It’s a matter of perceived risk.  We judge that the biological processes decaying the tree will soften and dislodge the tree more rapidly than the geological processes of weathering will loosen the rocks.  Therefore, we conclude that we are at greater risk of being crushed beneath the decaying tree than being crushed by fallen rocks.

We make many of our choices based on the apparent level of risk, imminence of danger, and our personal threshold of fear.  I remember dressing in a protective honeybee hat and long sleeves with “bee smoker” ready to help my grandpa capture a bee swarm high up in a tree.  As I climbed the ladder, I immediately performed a risk assessment as to which would be the greater threat to my life—getting stung, or falling from the ladder while trying to avoid bee stings.  I decided to hold onto the ladder no matter what.

Divided Over Our Risk
Today, we are confronted by multiple threats to our lives.  Some seem remote; others may appear imminent.  For example, studies reveal that passengers of large-size cars are more likely to survive a crash than those riding in small cars.  However, those concerned about carbon footprint and the threat of climate change encourage us to drive smaller cars, even hybrid or electric cars.  Once again however, we must prioritize among the three risks to decide which is most urgent:  risk of dying in a car crash, risk of going broke from buying the more expensive car, or risk of a global climate crisis.

Speaking of the “global climate crisis,” Americans have been divided for several decades among “climate deniers,” “non-deniers,” and “disavowers” (i.e. those who accept the climate data but don’t take action).  Such a deeply divided culture needs an atmosphere of civility in which open dialog and sound reasoning can occur among climate scientists, ecologists, politicians, social scientists, and the general public.  We emphasized this point in a 2020 Oikonomia article, “Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the ‘Atmosphere’ Right.”  

Now, in Part 2 of our series on climate change, we focus on “Rightly Weighing Our Risks.”  Our purpose is to assess the relative influence of three spheres of influence on popular opinion and behavior related to the “climate crisis;” namely, (a) science, (b) politics, and (c) religion.  We understand that any of these three can influence the others, but we will try to address them separately.

Can Science Persuade?
In 2017, our Oikonomia article entitled “Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care” reviewed climate science data and various interpretations in considerable detail.  We raised important considerations related to the following:
(a) reliability of climate data,
(b) validity of scientific interpretations,
(c) predicted benefits of climate policies toward planetary and human health; and,
(c) influence on behavior of world leaders and their followers. 
Please click HERE to revisit our earlier analysis.

According to recent polling, voters are not convinced that climate change is the most urgent threat.  For example, polling by a progressive think tank, Data for Progress [Click HERE.], revealed that nearly half of Americans (48%) rank the faltering economy as their greatest concern compared to only 6% for climate change.  That the majority of Americans rank the economy and other issues at higher risk than climate change suggests that, in spite of dire predictions, they have adopted a utilitarian ethic.  Utilitarians pursue what they believe is the greatest good for themselves, and secondarily, the greatest good for the greatest number of other people.

Michael S. Northcott, Professor Emeritus of Ethics at the University of Edinburgh, concluded, “Scientific prophecies of environmental crisis do not have the motive power to change the direction of a form of civilization which has become accustomed to courting risk and hazard as a way of life (The Environment & Christian Ethics. Cambridge U. Press, 1996).”  As we noted earlier, we all assess risk of danger in our decision-making.  But sometimes we are tempted to ignore warnings and plunge ahead in spite of danger.  At other times we are distracted by “shiny objects” that distract us or distort our judgment from realizing a great and looming danger. 

The chart below highlights a few of the potentially disturbing changes in American culture.  Some have much larger and immediate implications than climate warming.  We recognize that these data are but a small subset of much more data on each subject.  However, based on these data which would you rank in the top five needing most immediate attention? [Click on chart to enlarge.]

Maybe we should be asking ourselves whether we’ve been too distracted by the “shiny objects” of climate change and the Green Revolution at the expense of other more imminent and dangerous trends.  On the other hand, maybe the distraction has kept us from marveling at the amazing near-constancy of many of the life-sustaining conditions of planet Earth (See blue portion of chart.).  Certainly, politics and the media have a persuasive influence on how we judge risks among the various threats we face.  We go there next.

Political Persuaders
Many politicians and policy makers emphasize the “imminent threat” of climate change.  To them, the climate threat justifies drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage. The resulting limits have hiked energy costs and triggered economic inflation.  Together, these changes cause additional emotional and spiritual challenges to the health of our culture.  Nevertheless, in efforts to convince climate-deniers and disavowers of the imminence of the “climate crisis,” some call for more aggressive re-education.

In the Journal of Environmental Thought and Education (Japan) [See HERE.], John P. Clark writes (emphasis added) “we need to work harder on creating good environmental education so that the public can engage in more effective environmental thinking.”  But Clark’s view of “good environmental education” calls for aggressive indoctrination.  He recommends “reorganizing our social world into networks of awakened and caring transformational communities that are dedicated to undertaking whatever actions are necessary to put an end to the Necrocene (“era of death”) and initiate a new era characterized by the flourishing of life on Earth.”

Clark’s approach to environmental education, and that of many others who support “Green Energy” policies, involves integrating ecological principles with the social and political sciences.  Education ought to include integration across disciplines.  But education can quickly become forced indoctrination when it includes, in Clark’s words, “undertaking whatever actions are necessary” to bring about their envisioned transformation.  Not to be alarmist, but history has shown that individuals and followers who vow to “undertake whatever actions are necessary” have given rise to much suffering, destruction, and death.  Already, we can see signs of trouble on the horizon.

For example, the agenda for 2030 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) [Click HERE] calls for a one-world government.  As we wrote in Oikonomia during the pandemic in 2020, “power-seeking individuals of the WEF believed the COVID lockdown provided the model for the next global lockdown—one justified by the threat of climate change!  [See “Climate Lockdowns Coming Soon,” click HERE.]  A 2020 statement by WEF proposes that the responses by “political institutions” to the COVID pandemic could serve as a “crucial dress-rehearsal for a transition to a different economic model…”  Already, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has urged the initiation of a climate lockdown as follows:

The climate crisis is one of the biggest emergencies that our country has ever faced, and our time is running out. Americans are counting on Biden to lead accordingly. Let’s act boldly, and treat this crisis like the emergency it is.  [Click HERE to read more.]

Senator Merkley’s proposal to avert the predicted “climate crisis” is typical of many bold revolutionary proposals offered by scientists and politicians today.  Again, we must call for objective and civil discussion to assess the certainty and imminence of the climate threat and the likelihood that a given policy will bring about the intended result.  Building civility and community consensus at the national and global level is a tall order.

Lack of “Community” among Authorities
Authorities in both the scientific and political “community” would certainly be more convincing if they could reach a consensus that we are indeed facing a “climate crisis.”  However, in spite of the “Paris Accord,” there remains much “discord” among world leaders [See HERE.].  Many do not all take the climate data equally seriously.  Nor are they all equally committed to making good on commitments to reduce fossil fuel usage and resultant carbon emissions in the spirit of the Paris Accord.

The website “Our World in Data” [Click HERE.] has an interactive collection of data charts on CO₂ emissions by region and by nation.  The data reveal that Communist China lacks a genuine commitment to lowering atmospheric carbon emissions.  Note that China’s annual carbon emissions are over twice that of the United States.  Furthermore, China’s carbon emissions continue to trend upward while the US and other western nations have achieved drastic reductions in emissions. 

In spite of this great disparity, the WEF and other authorities are pushing the notion of a global climate crisis.  Simultaneously, they are pressuring the US and western nations for drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage in favor of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar energy.  Efforts to restrict fossil fuel extraction in the US in order to force the switch from gasoline- and diesel-powered to electric-powered cars and trucks is well intended but experts believe, too fast for technology and the markets to adjust.  Already, restriction of synthetic fertilizer use by farmers disrupts agricultural production, resulting in food shortages and political unrest in nations like Sri Lanka and the Netherlands [Click HERE.]

Clearly, the so-called “global community” of nations is not behaving as a true community in addressing current ecological and economic concerns.  From a utilitarian ethical perspective, we can see that China’s “greater good” appears to be aimed at economic and political domination.  The governing Communist Party uses every weapon in its arsenal to achieve this goal with little apparent concern about the “climate crisis.”  Considering China’s effort to promote its prominence in the world through the Green Revolution, and before approving Sen. Merkley’s proposed “climate emergency” measures, we should remember the devastating effect of lockdowns during the COVID-19 (Wuhan Virus) pandemic on education, economy, education, exercise of faith, and overall well-being.

In view of China’s lack of cooperation in a “global community” approach to reduce carbon emissions, the recommendation of John P. Clark  to establish “awakened and caring transformational communities“ worldwide seems shallow and unrealistic.  Already, efforts like the Paris Accord and WEF are playing into the hands of Communist China, giving it the upper hand in its effort toward world domination, leaving the US in an increasingly weakened position.

Religious Faith Persuasion
Admittedly, the notion of a “global community” is not inherently wrong.  Each of our three spheres of influence-- science, politics, and religion attract people into community based on common goals, interests, or beliefs.  Like science and politics, our third system of influence, world religions, are systems of beliefs and practices believed to justify adherents in the eyes of some higher being or standard.

In recent years, many environmentally conscious people have integrated their love for nature into their preferred sacred, religious belief(s).  Many environmentally conscious people who have chosen to follow secular liberalism have rejected traditional the Judeo-Christian teachings of faith in God and the importance of marriage, family, and community.  Yet, as Sumantra Maitra writes,¹ their human instincts for faith — to believe, worship, submit, and fear — didn’t just go away but manifested in various other pre-civilized tribal ways.  For example, a liberal seminary encouraged its students to skip classes to pray and confess sins in front of potted plants.  In Switzerland, 250 people in full funereal garb mourned the apparent approaching death of a glacier.

Major religions include the monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), polytheistic (e.g. Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism), and atheistic and pantheistic (e.g. Buddhism).  Historically, the creation or natural world has served as an inspiration within many religions, each claiming they represent “the Way” to follow.  What follows is a sketch of how some have drawn upon Buddhism as a basis for right living and caring for the Earth.

Buddhism and Christianity
John P. Clark’s call for an “era of a liberated humanity and a liberated nature,” described earlier, is rooted in Buddhism [See HERE.].  As Clark elaborates, “In this endeavor, we can find inspiration in the ancient Buddhist concept of Appamāda. “Appamāda” is a Pali word (“Apramada” in Sanskrit) that conveys the ideas of both ‘mindfulness’ and ‘care.’ The practice of Appamāda implies that we must be awakened to the world and all the beings around us, and that in such an awakened state we become capable of responding to and caring for them effectively.”

Buddhism denies the existence of God and His salvation by grace through Jesus Christ.  Instead, “salvation” rests in human effort.  The Buddhist practice of Appamāda, in conjunction with extensive periods of meditation, can lead us to find within ourselves our own moral justification through enlightenment resulting in a greater mindfulness and a caring attitude.  Clark blames the “capitalist society of mass consumption” for generating “a certain form of selfhood that is inclined to obsessive desires, powerful addictions, and sick attachments.”  Clark goes on to suggest that capitalism generates “…an entire culture of consumption that socializes us into believing that a world of obsessive craving is the only one possible.”  On the other hand, as we are enlightened, we overcome the inclination to satisfy our compulsions and destructive behavior toward ourselves and the Earth.

In contrast to the subjectivity of Buddhism, Christianity is based on the objective revelation and authenticity of God’s Word (2 Peter 1: 20-21).  The inspired Scriptures reveal everything we need to know about our moral state, our responsibility before God, our justification, and our future.  God’s objective revelation culminates in the revelation of His Son, Jesus Christ, the Living Word, and His incarnate birth, sinless life, death, and resurrection.

Whereas, the Buddhist targets the material world and capitalist society as sources of our cravings, addictions, and unhealthy attachments, Christianity locates the source of our destructive thoughts and behavior within the sin-corrupted mind and heart of each person.  We are rebels in the image of Adam and Eve who yielded to Satan’s lies.  Romans 1: 21-24 reveals the pathetic path our ancestors chose (emphasis added to highlight progression): 

For although
(a) they knew God,
(b) they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him,
(c) but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 
(d) Therefore, God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another.

Unlike Buddhism which offers unending cycles of reincarnation, Christianity offers the free gift of eternal life beginning at the moment of salvation by faith.  Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life (John 6: 47).”  Christian theology teaches that each individual is bound for eternal suffering in Hell unless justified by faith in the suffering, death, and resurrection of God the Son who paid the price for our justification (Romans 6: 23).  The Apostle Peter wrote, Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.  He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit (1 Peter 3: 18).

The Christian is born again to new life and now has the power of the Spirit of Christ to enable him or her to produce “the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience… self-control; against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5: 22-23).  This fruit is contrasted with works of our flesh which are “…sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,” and other compulsions (v. 19-21) which John P. Clark named as the cause of environmental degradation. 

New Profession: “Steward’
The Christ-follower does not have to seek personal identity in materialism and excessive consumption.  Instead, he or she finds love, joy, peace, and self-control in his or her intimate walk with God.  Spirit-led Christ-followers reject the path of the first man, Adam, who was given dominion and stewardship of the Earth but rebelled, leading to the Fall of mankind (Genesis 1: 28; 2: 15).   

The Christ-follower is reborn and renewed in the Spirit of the “second Adam (Christ)” to serve as steward of God’s grace and God’s creation.  This stewardship is central to his or her keeping of the two great commandments—loving God whole-heartedly and loving neighbor as much as love for self (Matthew 22: 36-40).  The steward who focuses on loving God and neighbor is wonderfully positioned to balance his or her vibrant hope of eternal Heaven with a commitment to stewardship of the Earth which he or she serves for the glory of God and the good of neighbor.  In contrast to the ambiguity and subjectivism of Buddhism and all other man-derived religions, the Christian faith provides a clear, complete, and objective revelation through the Scriptures.  Environmental ethicist, J.B. Callicott, has written, The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic is especially elegant and powerful.  It also exquisitely matches the requirements of conservation biology [by conferring] objective intrinsic value on nature in the clearest and most unambiguous of ways:  by divine decree².  

What Are Your Greatest Risks?
Would you ever choose to stand beneath or locate your camp under a cliff overhang with a decaying log teetering above you?  We hope not; at least before you assess the risk of danger.  We also hope this article has helped you consider how you are prioritizing among the various social and global risks that pose a threat to you and your loved ones, community, and nation.  Shouldn't we all try to become more knowledgeable of how science, politics, and religious faith are influencing our leaders?   Then, we can be better prepared to exercise our voices and our votes in support of leaders who will make wise decisions.   

From our Christian faith, we conclude by saying, God offers Christ-followers the promise of life forever in the New Heaven and the New Earth in which righteousness dwells (Revelation 21-22).  Some of us may die from underestimating risk.  Others of us may be called by Christ our Savior to risk our lives for a person or for the cause of His Gospel.  Regardless, both the Scriptures and experience tell us our death rate is 100%.   After this comes judgment that determines where we will spend eternity (Hebrews 9: 27).  Risk of calamity from climate warming is worthy of consideration, but the risk of eternal damnation and separation from God is 100% if we reject God’s provision through the Cross of Christ.  About what risks are you most concerned?

Comments and Questions:
As always, we welcome your responses using the “Comments” link below to express your thoughts and questions about this article, or what you believe and why.  You may also write privately to silviusj@gmail.com
-------
Footnote:
¹ Maitra, Sumantra. "Climate Worship Is Nothing More than Rebranded Paganism.  The Federalist, September 26, 2019.

² Van Dyke, Fred. 2006. Cultural Transformation and Conservation: Growth, Influence, and Challenges for the Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic Perspective on Science and Christian Faith 58(1):48

Related Readings:
“Creation Care and Christian Character” Creation Care, Summer, 2007
“Calling for Stewardship Without a Master” July 2, 2013
“Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 3 "Serving with Our Neighbor” November 23, 2014
“Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care”   Oikonomia, June 9, 2017
“Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the ‘Atmosphere’ Right.”  September 21, 2019
“Earthkeeping and Character: Book Review” December 5, 2020