Creation Groans | World of Wounds

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Finally got to listen to this episode and the next one with the liturgy of lament. I had also just listened to the interview with Jonathan Moo, so grouping environmentalism topics together. I appreciate the honest and careful way that Jim and Colin are laying out the horrible environmental realities in conjunction with a discussion of the effects of dispair on action. The attention placed on HOW to deal with these realities at our individual psychological level is unique and valuable. Developing and publishing the second, extraordinary episode in this series is extremely daring. It’s one to go back to regularly and share widely. Thanks so much!

As a follow up to Moo’s interview, I have looked up the Dark Mountain movement’s website and manifesto. The contrast between it and the Liturgy of Lament is valuable and instructive.
Kendel

1 Like
22

Yes, the West in particular, has built current forms of culture and enormous wealth on the burning of fossil fuels. Likewise, we have benefitted enormously from our ruthless practice of colonization and exploitation of the colonized. We have stolen continents and murdered or ghettoized as many of the inhabitants as needed to subdue them and then used them to extract the wealth from the ground and use it for ourselves. We have benefitted from the purchase, sale and trade of human beings in the U.S. and U.K. But it happened before any in living memory; so it’s all easy to forget.

Recognizing evil and destructive practices is essential to change, and change we must. In a few ways we have faced the evil and at least stopped practicing some forms of it. We haven’t repaired much, if anything. Continuing to practice destruction, because it’s beneficial to anyone, is unjustifiable.

To claim that the recognition of the destruction we are doing to our only home by our use of fossil fuels and a commitment to greatly reduce or even eliminate their use is equivalent to “want[ing] to limit that prosperity for those who need it most” is simply dishonest.

The environmental cost of continuing to use fossil fuels as we do has been well modeled by many. The effect of that environmental cost on “those who need [prosperity] most” has also been well modeled. The poor everywhere are the most vulnerable to the increasing ecological and climatological devastation that is making itself widely known. Any gains from continuing to make the problems worse by maintaining our unbridled use of fossil fuels will be short-lived for the people who are living at the bottoms of our economies.

You can stick by your dissenters and claim to be “listening to all sides.” But sometimes the dissenters have been heard, understood and rejected for good reason. Then it’s time to move away from the things we wish were true and work with people who are seeking real solutions that will eventually damage fewer lives and help more.

23

Kendel, I’ve heard this argument before and I appreciate the passion with which you believe the future must be different. What I struggle with is that is seems to say that the whatever the negative consequences are for the less privileged is legitimized by the need to act now and dramatically rework the global structure we have. I’m sorry that I believe that is unacceptable and is not likely to succeed either.

Maybe you could help me understand how you have eliminated fossil fuel use in your life, and how you might see the people of central Africa our of poverty and improve their well-being without it.

Also, the “West” is an easy punching bag but I think you’ll find that all of human history is colored with the same brush you’ve used to paint it. Unfortunately, we are fallen beings and our corrupt and selfish behaviors often cause immense harm - nothing new there in the last 200yrs from the previous million.

God willing, there is a path forward that leads to similarly remarkable environmental improvements of the last 50yrs in the next 50yrs. I’m thankful that in God’s sovereign not where we are today by accident and we should have confidence in our future, despite our human failings. That does not mean He does not expect us to be better care-takers of our planet.

24

The primary questions need to be (1) whether we need to reduce and eliminating fossil fuel use in society and (2) what are the best (ecological, economical, political, social) solutions for our energy use and consumption? There are several ways in which we as individuals can reduce and radically cut our fossil fuel usage. Solar for many is becoming competitive and governments are giving incentives (as they have with other energy options). But more and more countries in the West, for instance, are supporting this transition. It is unclear if you are asking for example (to try yourself) or a justification of whether she is practicing what she is preaching. I would say, whether she is or not, does answer whether we should. Nor does it address the fact that different places will require different solutions (for all kinds of reasons).

The central question though is whether increased CO2 levels are damaging our planet (in the many ways described on the podcast), and whether fossil fuels are the primary source of that CO2. Scientifically the answer is an unequivocal yes and yes. In your responses to various posts, I am still unclear whether you agree that greenhouse gas emissions are problematic; and if so, how much?

The IPCC, with very conservative models, indicated in the third report that the window of opportunity to respond is rapidly closing.

1 Like
25

Andrew, I do believe that human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions causes global warming and is potentially dangerous to the planet and its inhabitants. I do agree that one person can do little and that much larger scale solutions are required. I do not thing solar or wind have enough energy density to have much impact. As an example consider how CO2 emissions dropped in the US over the last 15 yrs, and how it is primarily due to switching from coal to natural gas. The small fraction of energy produced by solar and wind has had a small impact and the carbon foot print of solar and wind are not insignificant - same for EVs. The only large scale solution that can have an impact is switching the electric grid to be dominated by nuclear. No other solution comes close. The time horizon is longer but the other solutions are very high cost, have practical limitations, and will not get us were we need to be. Read Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never for a much better explanation.

Throwing fire bombs at the US and western culture advances which have provided incredbile benefits to millions/billions of people is of zero help to anyone.

26

You have clearly thought through your position and know your own mind. And you are welcome to hold your views.

I, on the other hand, see no way of avoiding the devestation I described above without enormous worldwide cultural and technological changes that will allow us to move away from the use of fossil fuels and the sooner the better. Like it or not, the must change or start watching more and more of the planet become truly uninhabitable. And it will be those at the bottom who die first and suffer most in the process.

So, I leave your bait, regarding my use of or elimination of fossil fuels in my life, right where you put it. My individual changes, even if I were able to completely wean myself for all fossil fuel use, are so minute in comparison to what is needed I would only be setting myself up for condemnation: not doing enough, or being ineffective in my doing.

Indeed the “West” is an easy punching bag. I stuck with the theme your originally developed, unless, of course you had some other part of the world in mind, when you said “we in the West have benefited the most from it.” I was merely pointing out that we in the West have benefitted from a great many other evils that needed to be eliminated. But maybe I missed something.

Yes, we live in a fallen, corrupt world, where we often see the devestation full force. God has allowed it to rage all over and throughout time. Maybe you read a different newspaper and different books. I see no reason to believe that he would prevent us from killing each other and ourselves in our sinfullness, if we insist on it.
On the other hand, I see the world populated by His image bearers — the worst of which is full of great worth in His eyes and should be in ours as well. I see no reason to avoid dealing with the serious state of the environment head on with all the possible tools we have and developing the ones we lack. Since there is only one Earth to live on, and science fiction is still fiction.

I live in a region where there is enormous resistance to research and development of alternative fuel and electrical sources. I have no idea why. And I’ve heard no good arguments. No arguments at all, really, beyond “This is stupid. We don’t need this.” Maybe around here we can pretend. We have more water than other places. It’ll last a little while. But our climate is also changing in ways that make that water less plentiful. So, someone had better be thinking about water purification systems as well, which will need more energy somehow.

Feel free to maintain your views and rely on your desenters. I, too, recognize your arguments, and find them unconvincing.

6 Likes