Consistent Conservation -- Part 1: Following the Right Recipe

Those who can bake delicious cakes, cookies, and breads realize that their batter or dough must have “consistency.” That is, it must have the proper thickness, firmness, or stickiness.  Consistency depends on the right ingredients, the amounts of each, the order in which they are each added, the manner and duration of stirring, and other factors.  Proper consistency means there is an agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another resulting in an integrated whole.    

Imagine the frustration we would incur if we hastily began to bake a cake before getting the right recipe and gathering all of the proper utensils and ingredients.  Good baking depends on planning, timing, and careful attention to the recipe.  The same goes for the planning and administration of economic or social policy.  Policy aimed at shifting from a fossil fuel-driven economy to a green- or renewable energy-driven economy is producing disruption and frustration on a much larger scale than a poorly executed baking effort. 

The rush to renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geothermal) is driven largely by an attempt to reduce or eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas) that are thought to cause climate change.  The widespread economic and political impacts of this initiative in America and worldwide are causing considerable debate. 

This article is Part 1 in a series on what we shall call “Consistent Conservation.”  Here, we examine the validity of arguments and motivations for using renewable energy.  Many well-meaning efforts are based on subjective notions instead of objective truth about our role as humans on planet Earth.  We will emphasize that truly “consistent conservation,” like a well- executed cake-baking effort is only possible when the “ingredients” are in place and the “recipe” of policy and practice are grounded in the Christian environmental stewardship ethic.

Renewable Energy Considerations
Although many of us are switching to a more conserving lifestyle, it is important that we have the right motivations for conserving.  Two disclaimers are in order. 

First, no one should disparage those who favor “green energy” based on a deeply held conservation or stewardship ethic (Read more HERE.)  Readers who have purchased an electric car, solar collectors, or geothermal heating-cooling systems; or, who have joined more traditional cultures in erecting a windmill near their home are lowering their energy demand and cost.  In addition, partial dependence on renewable energy invites us to be more energy-conscious and to pursue additional energy-conserving strategies.

Second, we do not oppose policies for expanding the use of green, renewable energy in our economy.  However, we do oppose drastic efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels based on false claims that climate change is the most dangerous existential threat we face. [See “Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks.” Click HERE to read.]  Indeed, a more imminent threat to human life and well-being than climate change may come from

reckless anti-fossil fuel policies.  For example, agricultural production of food depends on fossil fuels to produce synthetic fertilizer.  It follows that restriction of synthetic fertilizer use by farmers will disrupt agricultural production leading to food shortages and political unrest.  Tragically, this scenario is already playing out in Sri Lanka  [Click HERE.]and the Netherlands [Click HERE.]

“ESG” Incentives
What kind of logic is so influential as to cause a whole nation to voluntarily choke off agricultural chemicals to its farmers?  Increasingly, the answer is ESG which stands for Environmental, Social, Governance.  Companies like ESG Enterprise offer financial advice to investors in capital markets who may wish to promote their own ethical values with respect to “sustaining the environment” or promoting “social justice.”  The ESG approach incentivizes corporations and whole nations to adopt policies that generate a good “ESG score.”  Individuals, corporations, or whole nations can earn a high "ESG score" by aligning policies and investments with the liberal, progressive philosophy of what is deemed good for the Earth, and economically and socially equitable.  In turn, they are rewarded in ways that improve their marketing competitiveness and enhance their appeal to ESG-conscious investors.

The ESG approach is largely responsible for what is happening to agriculture in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.  Both nations have attempted to earn high ESG scores, partly by restricting supplies of fertilizers to their farmers which have led to the food shortages and political unrest noted above.  Yet, in spite of scientific evidence that climate change is only partly due to human practices, policies driven by efforts to curb gradual climate change are posing immediate threats of national food shortage and civil unrest.  Another mismatch of policy with reality is evident in the current push for electric cars without adequate charging capacity (Click on graphic below to enlarge).

The ESG and “Green New Deal” approach may be well intended.  However, unless our good intentions are based on “good science” and sound governmental and economic policies they can cause immediate and acute threats.  Unfortunately, instead of realizing and learning from bad outcomes when fertilizers are withheld, many want to charge ahead.  Two personal considerations are worthy of our attention.

First, some of us who have retirement funds invested in capital markets that support ESG may want to consider whether we are wise to support an unethical environmental agenda.  Second, we ought to check our motives in making purchases in response to “green initiatives.”  For example, before purchasing an electric car we should be aware of the current shortages of charging capacity and the environmental impact of extracting lithium and others raw materials needed to make the batteries.  Rushing full steam down a bad path is often encouraged by our biased media which hides news contrary to liberal progressive ideology. 

Shallow-Rooted Motives
Bias in journalism and science reporting have persuaded many to become “me-too conservationists.”  This group, generally speaking, includes those who deliberately or unknowingly give lip service to a shallow environmentalism.  Me-too conservationists are easily allured by a desire to show others that they have “bought green” or have acquired a high ESG score.  Their motivation may be for social acceptance or for political or economic gain.  Everyone wants to be socially accepted; but even the best intentions are no excuse for an ignorance that underestimates the complexities of energy conservation. 

Wise natural resource conservation requires an environmental ethic rooted in something deeper than a “me-too motivation” that follows the latest fad or charismatic leader; or, that responds in fear of the latest apocalyptic prediction.  Instead, we must realize that each person thinks and makes choices according to a system of morality and ethics that is rooted in their worldview.  Therefore, if we are to behave properly toward the environment and influence others to follow, we must understand the nature and influence of our worldview.  [NOTE:  A worldview is a framework or lens through which we can understand and relate to the world around us.  For more on “Worldview,” see “Reflections at Age Seventy-five;” click HERE].

A person’s morality may be either subjective, based on his or her view of how one ought to live; or, objective and based on an external set of absolutes.   According to a survey of 2,000 adult Americans by the American Worldview Inventory 2021, over half (54%) embrace the postmodern idea that all truth is subjective and there are no moral absolutes.  However, those who deny the existence of moral absolutes and choose to live by their own subjective code of morality and ethics must grant every other person the same privilege.  A culture based on “I’m okay, you’re okay” sounds good in theory.  However, in reality this subjectivity leads us down a path of selfishness, misunderstanding, inconsistency, confusion, division, frustration, and even despair and suicide.

Consistency in Conservation
Into this world of selfishness, confusion, and conflict, God has revealed through His Word in the Scriptures exactly who we are and what our purpose is.  He created us to be His stewards who can only find fulfillment and joy when we serve under His authority rather than being masters of our own lives.  This means surrendering our subjective notions of how to govern our lives; and instead, yielding to the objective revelation of God’s Word.  Instead of falling for the satanic deception as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), God offers us, through the free gift of salvation in Christ, the wisdom and opportunity to make choices that are right and pleasing to Him. 

The choice is ours of either “consistent conservation” or a path into “woke environmentalism.”  Me-too environmentalists who go so far as to live in deliberate rebellion against God’s authority can become susceptible to the popular woke ideology based on critical theory.  Woke philosophy and critical theory are based on a false historical narrative and a false view of humankind.   Wokeism thrives on a distorted view of both God’s natural revelation (His creation) and God’s special revelation (inspired Scriptures).  The result is a spiritually darkened view of humankind that divides us from our neighbor and dislocates us from our position as submissive stewards under God who calls us to exercise dominion over creation.  In so doing, wokeism destroys the only objective justification for our responsibility as servant caretakers of the Earth.  [Read more in “Stewards without a Master” by clicking HERE.]                                                                                        

On the other hand, consistent conservation is the only objective path to conserving resources while at the same time respecting the needs of our neighbors both near and around the world.  As we have explained in detail earlier, the word conservation is derived from the Latin, con- (with) + servitium (service).  Both conservation and stewardship carry the notion of serving with or for the benefit of another as opposed to serving oneself.  [For more detail, click HERE.]

We Are Consistent… in Christ
God never asks us to follow His principles without showing us how to follow.  He did that by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, who “served with” His Father as a perfect steward… Who, being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2: 8-11).

Whereas “conservation” is perfected when we follow Christ’s example of “serving with” our Father, we must also consider conservation that is “consistent.”  Consistent conservation is the practice of the Christian stewardship ethic which is grounded in the wisdom of Christ.  In Colossians 1: 15-17, Apostle Paul exalts Jesus Christ as being …the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by Him were all things created… by Him, and for Him:  And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist (or, "hold together").

The child’s Bible song, “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands” is the elementary expression of the truth that Christ “existed before anything else, and He holds all creation together (Colossians 1: 17 NLT).   Who can read this proclamation without exalting Christ as Creator, Savior and Lord?  It is not by our own intelligence or any other trait which we can boast, but by the mercy of God who calls us to yield our lives to His rightful authority.  Only by following the example of Christ can we expect to live a life of consistency and practice consistent conservation of the resources God grants to our care as stewards.  

But, instead of submitting to the authority of Christ and seeing how all things "hold together" in Him, many are refusing Christ’s rule and are "coming apart." See our expanded definition of consistent conservation in text box on the right.

Everywhere we look we see the results of energy and economic policies that lack “consistency."  Like hasty bakers who have not followed the recipe, our leaders follow policies that produce worthless “batter” because it lacks consistency.  Well-intended policies that proport to “save the planet” from climate change are driven by a supposed existential threat which is not supported by significant global temperature change.  Nevertheless, energy policies are being implemented by “Green Energy” proponents at the expense of inflation and recession which are bring great hardship on the most vulnerable among us.  [See “Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks.”  Click HERE.]

In Part 2 of “Consistent Conservation,” we highlight two important thought leaders who represent two very different views of the role and future prospects for humankind on planet Earth:  Paul Ehrlich and Norman Borlaug.  We contemplate which of these two influencers of our current environmental policy direction exercised “consistent conservation.”  Click HERE to read Part 2.

Comments and Questions:
How have current energy and economic policies affected your decisions and lifestyle?  Are there ways you exercise “consistent conservation” or plan to do so?  As always, we welcome your responses using the “Comments” link below to express your thoughts, questions, and suggestions.  You may also write privately to silviusj@gmail.com