Over the last two or three
hundred years, human beings have taken countless billions of tons of coal, oil
and gas from underground and have burned it. Today, a large majority of climate
scientists tell us that doing this has caused an increase in the number and
intensity of droughts, floods and storms. They tell us too that unless we
significantly reduce the amount that we burn these fuels, we can expect the
number and intensity of these weather events to continue to increase.
I am convinced that there
is nothing un-Christian about these claims and that they should be taken very
seriously. Droughts, floods and storms often cause widespread death and suffering,
especially in poorer parts of the world. If these climate scientists are right,
we should definitely aim to do something about this. Even if we think that they
are only probably right, we should still aim to follow their advice, since the
stakes are so high.
I am well aware, however,
that not all Christians are persuaded that we should follow these climate
scientists’ advice. In what follows, I will list some objections that have been
or could be made, and I will give what I believe are reasonable answers. I am
not a climate scientist myself, although I have found that that has not
prevented me from reaching some clear conclusions on this issue. I do have a university
degree in chemistry, which I will use a little in the arguments that I will
make.
Let’s turn, then, to the
discussion.
Objection 1
The media are guilty of
misrepresenting scientific opinion on this subject. It is not actually the case
that a large majority of climate scientists claim that climate change is an
issue we can do something about.
Answer
It is true that there are
some climate scientists who openly disagree with what the majority say. And it
is true too that the media is surely sometimes biased on this issue.
Nevertheless, most climate
scientists live in countries where freedom of speech exists. And it is simply
not reasonable to think that the media have deceived the world into believing
that climate scientists generally don’t make the claims they are said to make.
Objection 2
Climate scientists are
typically dishonest in what they say. In order to get funding for research,
many pretend to believe in the standard position without in fact believing it.
Answer
It may well be true that a
few climate scientists do this.
However, firstly, it is
just as easy to think that dishonesty works the other way too. Oil companies
fund the research of some climate researchers, and it is not hard to imagine
that a few of these might dishonestly deny the majority position in order to
gain funding.
Secondly, it is not
reasonable to think that more than a small proportion of climate scientists are
knowingly dishonest about what they say. There is usually something in the
psyche of a scientist that is oriented towards a genuine search for truth. And
to think that most climate scientists have deliberately deceived the world on
the issue of climate change is very implausible.
Objection 3
Most climate scientists
have deceived themselves into believing what they want to believe on the issue
of climate change.
Answer
It is true that a small
number of climate scientists who support the majority view may have fallen into
this trap.
However, firstly, it is
just as easy to think that a few who deny the majority view may also have fallen
into this trap.
And secondly, scientists
are generally quite rigorous and careful in their analysis. It is very
difficult to imagine that most or even many climate scientists just believe what
they want to believe on this issue.
Objection 4
The majority view is simply
mistaken. Besides, the Bible tells us that “the fear of the LORD is the
beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Most climate scientists are not
Christians. Therefore, what they say is bound to be suspect.
Answer
It is right to say that
most climate scientists are not born-of-the-Spirit Christians. However, the
type of knowledge being referred to in this verse of Scripture seems to be
something deeper than scientific understanding. It is apparently about the deep
things of God, life and relationships.
Christian and non-Christian
scientists alike clearly have a very good understanding of many areas of
science. Take the marvel that is a smart phone, for example. Surely only a
minority of the scientists who developed this were saved believers. Yet the
technology is extremely complicated. And they must understand it correctly, at
least to a large extent, or they wouldn’t have got it to work. In many other
areas of science too it is clear that non-Christians have a good understanding
of things.
It is true that
non-Christian scientists go seriously wrong when they come up with God-less
theories of how the universe and humans originated. But climate science, like
most science, is very different from this. It has to do with analysis of things
that exist in the here and now, as well as predictions based on this analysis. And
there seems to be no good reason for thinking that climate scientists have a
poor understanding of these things.
Objection 5
The Bible makes it clear
that God causes weather. It is therefore wrong to suggest that people can alter
the weather by reducing the use of certain types of fuel.
Answer
The Bible certainly
portrays God on numerous occasions as behind weather events. However, this objection
is far too simplistic, for a few reasons:
(1) Throughout Scripture we
often find that both God and human beings are portrayed as responsible for the
same events. It is a mistake to think that if God is behind something, humans
cannot therefore be behind it too on another level.
Importantly, even when a
person commits a sin, in a real sense the event comes from both God and the
sinner. In Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28, for example, we are told that Jesus’
crucifixion – obviously a sinful act – was ordained by God, and it would be
right to understand the crucifixion as from God.
That is not to say that God
caused the crucifiers to crucify. Nor is it to say that the crucifiers caused
God to ordain the crucifixion. There are two levels of responsibility, one
divine and one human, neither of which causes the other. And the same is true
of human actions generally, including sinful human actions.
It wouldn’t contradict the
Bible, then, if some weather events were caused by human actions, even by
sinful human actions.
(2) It is questionable
whether picturing God as behind every weather event is the best way of looking
at things.
I do believe, as I have just
said, that on one level every single thing that happens comes in a real sense
from God. But nevertheless, on another level we are perhaps better not to think
of God as behind all weather.
Note how in Matthew 8:26,
Mark 4:39 and Luke 8:24 Jesus rebukes a storm. God can’t be divided against
Himself, so it is at least difficult to suppose that He should be pictured as
causing that storm.
I think a better approach
might, as a general rule, be to think of God’s relationship to weather along
these lines:
God created the phenomenon
that is weather, but He usually lets it follow its own course according to
natural laws that He also created, while intervening supernaturally from time
to time when it suits Him.
These natural laws would
include weather being affected by varying amounts of certain gases. And because
human actions can cause variation in the amounts of these gases, we can easily
understand how we are able to affect the weather.
(3) It is clear that humans
have the ability to significantly affect nature.
For example, breeding of
crops and animals has gone on for thousands of years. Extensive breeding has
meant, for instance, that most bulldogs can now only be born by Caesarean
section.
Importantly too, in recent
history we have seen much greater human influence over nature. Leaving ethical
issues aside, it is now possible to allow babies with three biological parents
to be conceived in test tubes.
We must remember that human
beings are extremely significant and valuable in God’s sight. We are made in His
image. So if we can alter nature in such a monumental way that three-parent
babies are conceived in test tubes, how much more might we expect to be able to
alter something as comparatively unimportant as the weather?
Even with regard to the
atmosphere, we have seen how humans have altered nature by their actions. A few
decades ago, scientists found that a hole in the ozone layer, high in the
earth’s atmosphere, had formed. Research was done and it was discovered that
certain chemicals, used in some manufacturing processes, were to blame. So,
many manufacturers switched to using different chemicals, and the ozone hole
has now reduced in size as a result. Human choices caused this problem in the
atmosphere, and other choices have begun to solve it.
For a number of reasons,
then, the argument appealing to God’s sovereignty as a reason why people can’t
affect the weather is mistaken.
Objection 6
God has given us coal, oil
and gas. There is nothing wrong with engines or power supplies, and burning these
things to drive engines and create power is useful for us. Therefore it must be
fine to do this.
Answer
Again, this is far too
simplistic. Just because something found in nature can easily be used for a worthwhile
purpose doesn’t mean that it is right to use it in that way.
Take the metal, lead, as an
example. This is found abundantly in nature, and, for a metal, it has a very
low melting point. It is therefore ideal for cheaply moulding into things, and
until a few decades ago it was widely used to make cold water pipes.
The problem was that the
lead came off in the water and caused serious health problems. So today cold
water pipes are usually made of copper or plastic instead.
Just as lead can be easily
and cheaply used to make cold water pipes but it is actually a bad idea to do this,
so too the same could easily be true of burning coal, oil and gas for engines
and power.
Unlike lead, which should
never have been made into clean water pipes, we don’t even have to say that
burning coal, oil and gas was always a problem. Maybe God intended that they
should be used to a certain extent until we found other ways of powering things.
But to say that they should continue to be extensively used simply because they
are plentiful and useful is completely wrong.
Objection 7
Many people have
experienced very cold winters in recent times. The whole idea that the
atmosphere is warming up is questionable.
Answer
This argument should be
quickly dismissed. It simply won’t do to look at a few isolated weather events
and draw conclusions from them alone. The big picture using a vast amount of data
is needed. And globally, the last few years have all been the warmest on
record.
It is true, for reasons to
do with wind directions and seasonal melting of ice, that some years in the
near future might not be quite as warm as some recent years. Global warming
doesn’t mean that each year will automatically be warmer than the previous one.
But the overall trend is clearly that the atmosphere is heating up. And for
every unusually cold spell somewhere there is more than one unusually warm
spell somewhere else.
Besides, global warming
doesn’t mean that we should expect heat waves all over the place. The amount of
warming is not predicted to be especially noticeable, at least in the short
term. The big factor is that the warming that does take place means that there
is more energy in the atmosphere. And this is predicted to lead to unusual
weather and more severe storms. “Climate change” is a better label than “global
warming,” since the climate, unlike air temperature, is predicted to change
significantly. “Global weirding” is another good label.
Objection 8
There have always been
plenty of droughts, floods and storms. There is no evidence that they are
increasing in number or intensity, or that there is an increase in unusual
weather.
Answer
The number of people who
believe this is surely decreasing. Recent years have seen more than a few unprecedented
weather events all around the world. There have been storms of unparalleled
strength, record-breaking temperatures and record rainfall in many places. And
in many parts of the world droughts, floods and storms are now noticeably more
common than they were even a few decades ago.
Objection 9
The amount of carbon dioxide
emitted by volcanoes is far greater than that produced by humans. Therefore,
any efforts to reduce carbon emissions are going to be pointless anyway.
Answer
This argument is surely wrong.
If volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than people do, climate scientists
would certainly realise and accept this. And they wouldn’t claim that human activity
causes more emissions.
We must bear in mind that most
of what volcanoes emit is not carbon dioxide. And we must bear in mind too that
in the world at any one time there are hundreds of millions of motor vehicles
burning oil, and thousands of planes and ships doing the same. There are also hundreds
or thousands of power stations burning coal, oil or gas around the clock, as
well as a multitude of industrial plants doing likewise.
It is not difficult to
believe that all this burning produces far more carbon dioxide than volcanic
eruptions.
Objection 10
Coal, oil and gas are the
products of ancient plant life. Getting them out of the earth and into the
atmosphere is actually a very natural thing to do, since the carbon in them is
then able, through photosynthesis, to form plants again.
Answer
This would be a good
argument if the number of trees in the world were increasing significantly. Then
the carbon would indeed end up in trees.
However, the number of
trees is actually decreasing dramatically. This means that the carbon from
coal, oil and gas stays in the atmosphere, apart from some that is absorbed by
the oceans.
In fact, in a real sense there
is something unnatural about taking billions of tons of a substance from
underground and basically putting it in the air by burning it. Nature, as God
has created it, is full of cycles. Day is followed by night, which is again
followed by day, and so on. Winter is followed by spring, summer and autumn,
and then the process is repeated. Water evaporates from the oceans, falls as
rain and flows down to the sea, whereupon the same things happen all over again.
Plants and the bodies of animals grow, die and decompose, and then the elements
are taken up into new plants and animals.
Burning coal, oil and gas,
by contrast, doesn’t involve a cycle. These things don’t go back underground. Nor,
with the decrease in trees, does the carbon find its way into new plant life. Or,
strictly speaking, some of it does, but even more is added to the atmosphere by
deforestation.
Climate scientists do concede
that some carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans. But they say that this
doesn’t happen enough to stop the amount in the atmosphere increasing
significantly.
It would be surprising if
taking so much material from underground and putting it in the air in this way
didn’t affect the climate somehow.
Objection 11
Many of the people who warn
most strongly about climate change also support immoral things like abortion on
demand and so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, we would expect them to be
wrong on climate change too.
Answer
These issues are completely
separate. Just because people support some evil things doesn’t mean that they can’t
be right on another important issue. No human beings are as bad as bad can be, and
everyone believes some things that are right.
Objection 12
Jesus will return soon, so
efforts to control climate change will prove to be unnecessary.
Answer
In the last 2000 years many
Christians have made similar predictions, but time and again they have proved
to be false.
Of course, Jesus will
return at some point in the future. But it is extremely harmful when Christians
make overconfident predictions about the timing of this.
Instead, what we should do
is take a twofold approach to the timing of the Lord’s return. On the one hand,
we should understand that end-times events could occur very rapidly and that He
could return within a few years. And on the other hand, we should understand
that it may be a great many years before He returns.
Objection 13
The Bible prophesies that
there will be famines. It is futile to try to prevent these by aiming to reduce
climate change.
Answer
The Bible does indeed
prophesy famines (Matthew 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11),
and some of these may well not have happened yet. However, Scripture doesn’t
tell us how many famines there will be. If we can make them fewer than they
would otherwise be, that is obviously the right thing to do.
Our attitude to famines should be
similar to our attitude to war. The Bible prophesies that wars will happen
(Mark 13:7-8 etc.), but we are still called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).
Objection 14
Droughts, floods and storms
are God’s judgment on people. We shouldn’t try to prevent God judging by
reducing the number of these weather events.
Answer
This argument is badly
mistaken.
First, it is extremely
doubtful that all droughts, floods and storms are acts of God’s judgment.
Second, our role as human
beings is to do good to everyone. We should never avoid treating people well for
fear of getting in the way of God’s judgment. He will succeed in getting any
judging done despite what we do.
Objection 15
We can’t be 100 per cent
sure that the majority view of climate scientists is correct. Therefore, there
is nothing wrong if we give ourselves the benefit of the doubt and choose not
to follow their advice.
Answer
It is true that we can’t be
totally sure that the majority view is correct (although I would say that it is
highly probable that it is).
Nevertheless, that gives us
no warrant for not following their advice. If the majority view is right, then taking
steps to tackle climate change will prevent huge numbers of people from
suffering horrible deaths in droughts, floods and storms. It would be
completely immoral to do nothing about this just because we think it’s only highly
likely that it will happen.
That would be like an
engineer examining a bridge used to transport many people and concluding that
it will very probably fall down, but because he isn’t sure it will fall he
won’t authorise repairs. Or it is like an aircraft mechanic deciding that a
plane is so dangerous that it will probably crash, but authorising use of it
simply because he isn’t certain that it will crash. People with any sense at
all don’t act like this.
Objection 16
An individual person or
family isn’t going to make any difference to climate change. Therefore, it is
not worth trying to do anything about it.
Answer
It is true that as an
individual person or family, reducing our use of carbon-based fuels isn’t going
to make much of a difference in itself. But individual actions often have a way
of encouraging others, leading to a snowball effect. In many countries emissions
of carbon dioxide are less than they were a few years ago. And the impetus to
this surely began with just a few people, maybe even a single person.
Secondly, it just seems
wrong for someone to say that they will aim to do nothing about a practice that
will very probably lead to greatly increased human suffering and death, simply
because they think that not enough other people are doing anything about it.
Conclusion
None of the above
objections to the advice coming from climate scientists is at all convincing. When
a large majority of them tell us that we can take steps to prevent many people
suffering and dying, we should therefore pay close attention to what they say. If
we ignore this advice or act against our consciences in responding to it, we
are committing a grave sin.
If someone is absolutely
convinced, for some reason or other, that the majority view of climate
scientists is wrong, then it would make sense for them to act accordingly. However,
whenever we find that we believe something we want to believe, that is a time
to double- and triple-check things. We are all tempted at times to believe what
suits us. And I would suggest that many, including Christians, have fallen into
this trap on the issue of climate change.
There is also another
important reason why we should follow the advice of climate scientists. For
huge numbers of non-Christians, climate change is a very big deal. When
non-Christians who take the majority view see believers rejecting this view, it
often puts them off the Christian faith.
Of course, it shouldn’t put
them off the faith. If they thought things through properly, they would realise
that the truth or falsehood of the Christian faith and the truth or falsehood
of the majority view on climate change are separate issues. But the fact of the
matter is that people often don’t think things through properly.
When people are put off the
faith because Christians are standing firm for something true, then so be it. But
when they are put off the faith, and therefore off the salvation that is in
Christ, because Christians themselves have a faulty understanding of something,
that is a terrible tragedy.
Steps we should take
So what steps should
Christians take in response to warnings of climate change?
Well, we can certainly pray
that the problem is solved by such things as the development and use of low-carbon
sources of energy. We can also lobby politicians. And we should also take a
long, hard look at how much carbon-based energy we use ourselves.
I do believe there is a
balance to be struck here, however. At the present time, much of the world runs
on coal, oil and gas, and we can’t expect people to avoid all that. I am not suggesting
that anyone should live in a cold home, for example. Nor am I saying that everyone
should give up driving non-electric cars. I own one myself and my conscience is
clear about that, although I do try to drive less than I used to. Each Christian
needs to go to God humbly and openly to ask for direction on exactly what steps
they should take.
See also:
