Those of us who are concerned about Age of Limits issues such as climate change, resource depletion and population overshoot are faced with a challenge. Should we concentrate our time and effort on “spreading the word” with books, blogs and web pages? Or should we focus on our personal lifestyle and working with others in our community?
Ideally, of course, we do both, but time, energy and money are all in limited supply. This year I have spent most of my time on home and community activities, and have slowed down on writing activities. But communicating with the larger world is important. I consistently say that the dilemmas that we face provide an opportunity for the church to provide leadership. Which means that we need to figure out a theology that is appropriate for our times. That is not something that can be done just at the local level. This week’s post to do with theology in the broadest sense is called ‘Gaia’ — details below.
As time permits, I will attempt to publish two blogs — one on Wednesdays and the other on Fridays. The first blog will consider “big picture” issues, with a particular focus on theology. The second blog, which may actually be a vlog (video log), will be to do with local activities. Since I have been doing a lot of gardening this year, most of these videos will be to do with the lessons learned to do with growing and storing food.
This is an ambitious agenda, but these are important topics, so we will see how it works out. The first blog in this series will be to do with Gaia.
I continue to work on the book Faith in a Changing Climate. The current Table of Contents can be downloaded here.
I added a new Chapter 1 a couple of months ago. Its title is ‘Dress Rehearsal’. The current pandemic has given us some insights as to how we might react to the long-term crises that we face. Further discussion to do with the ‘New Normal’ is provided in the following posts.
The following material is extracted from Chapter 7 of Faith in a Changing Climate. It discusses the topic of the ‘Earth Mother’. Although the Gaia Hypothesis provides some interesting insights as to how evolution works (it is more cooperative and less competitive than normally considered). or example, the components of a forest (such as trees, bushes, animals, earth and streams) all evolve with one another to benefit the survival and success of the forest. However, I see no need to add a spiritual component; the Gaia effect can be explained by reductionist reasoning.
One topic that is likely to draw theological attention in coming years is the concept of Gaia — a goddess in Greek mythology who was seen as the mother of all life. Her name has been applied to the ‘Gaia Hypothesis/Theory’, articulated by the atmospheric chemist, James Lovelock, in the 1960s, and also by Lynn Margulis and Carl Sagan.
The hypothesis or theory has many variations and interpretations. It has also attracted various New Age and Eco-Feminist followers, as seen in this image.
Earth as an Entity
The basic idea behind the Gaia hypothesis/theory is that the Earth, in its entirety, is composed of organs such as forests, wetlands and inorganic materials and life (including human life). Gaia is also composed of all living creatures, including humanity. This way of looking at the Earth is analogous to the human body that is made up organs, sinews, blood vessels and millions of cells, each making a contribution to the overall person.
In the words of Lovelock,
The Gaia Theory proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
In the year 2001 the European Geophysical Union meeting signed the Declaration of Amsterdam, starting with the statement,
The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system with physical, chemical, biological, and human components.
The human body is goal-directed — it is teleological. The goal is to sustain the life of the body and to create offspring. For example, if a person is too hot, he or she sweats in order to cool down, and then drinks water to replace what was lost in the sweat. Without these corrective actions the heat could lead to the death of the body. All the components of that body operate so as to achieve that goal. They act not just to optimize their own conditions, but also the health of the overall organism.
The Gaia theory suggests that the Earth operates in a similar manner. So, for example, if the earth’s surface temperatures rise, Gaia takes the actions needed to reduce those temperatures. This idea explains why the Earth’s surface temperature has stayed within quite a narrow range for millions of years, even though the sun is getting steadily hotter. The same line of thought explains why the ocean salinity has remained at roughly the same concentration for millions of years, in spite of the fact that salts are being added to the oceans all the time. According to this way of thinking, the damage that humans have done to the planet will eventually be corrected, just as the human body will heal damage caused to it.
In Chapter 5 the Foundation series of science fiction books written by Isaac Asimov is introduced. One of the “characters” in his story sequence is Gaia; she takes the form of a young lady, but she actually represents the planet on which she lives. Not only living creatures, but inanimate objects, such as rocks, are a part of her Gaia. (Asimov poses the interesting question as to the nature of food in such a place — after all if someone eats another creature, either animal or vegetable, she is, in effect, eating herself.)
One way in which the Earth control mechanisms work is through evolution. Margulis and Sagan suggested that evolution is not a process in which species develop in a competitive manner, and in which the most successful drive out those which fail to adapt to changing conditions. Instead, they postulate that evolution is a symbiotic process in which species develop together to ensure the health of Gaia.
. . . life is not surrounded by a passive environment to which it has accustomed itself. Rather, life creates and reshapes its own environment.
Margulis defined the term holobiont as an assemblage of a host and the many other species living in or around it, which together form a discrete ecological unit. The components of a holobiont are individual species or bionts, while the combined genome of all bionts is the hologenome. Human beings, forests and reefs are all examples of holobionts. Gaia can be considered to be a planetary holobiont. Its component parts evolve together in cooperation, rather than in competition, to keep the planet healthy.
With regard to the human body, it is possible to overwhelm the control mechanisms. For example, if the body is subject to high temperatures and high humidity for too long a time, the person will die of heat stroke. Similarly, the Gaia control mechanisms will finally be overwhelmed. There will come a time when the sun’s heat becomes so intense that the Earth’ temperature control mechanism will break down, and the oceans will boil away. But that fate lies millions of years in the future.
With regard to the Gaia Hypothesis, Lovelock wrote,
. . . the entire range of living matter on Earth, from whales to viruses, from oaks to algae, could be regarded as constituting a single living entity, capable of manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts.
People of faith may find themselves attracted to this point of view. They generally believe that individual human lives have purpose and meaning. The idea that the Earth, as an overall entity can have purpose and meaning, fits their way of thinking.
It is at this point that debate starts. Does the Earth maintain its parameters such as surface temperature and ocean salinity merely as a consequence of the laws of science? Or does the Earth have a consciousness, a will to survive, that directs the actions of its component parts? In the limit, Gaia becomes a person-like entity, hence the link to New Age philosophies.
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
. . .
that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
The alternative approach to the Gaia hypothesis is to assume that the Earth follows deterministic scientific laws. Like the human body, the Earth is a complex super-organism, just like the human body. But there is no need for the Earth to have a will or a consciousness. Indeed, there is no need for the Gaia Hypothesis at all.
The French scientist Le Chatelier developed a principle to explain how systems that are already in a state of equilibrium respond to disturbances such as to reach a new equilibrium. A simple example is provided by the following chemical reaction.
Two chemicals, A and B, are dissolved in a flask of water. The chemicals react to form C and D, as shown in the following equation.
A + B ↔ C + D
The reaction is reversible, which means that C and D also react with one another to form A and B. The system settles into an equilibrium. If more of chemical A is then added to the solution, some of chemical B is used, and more C and D are created. Eventually, a new equilibrium is established.
When this principle applied more broadly, it can be stated as,
When a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it.
In other words, most systems exhibit negative feedback; they react to a change by adjusting the system so as to return toward the initial conditions.
The self-regulation of the Earth’s temperature can be explained by the same principle. In Chapter 6 we saw how the earth’s systems have responded in previous times when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were high. The CO2 was slowly (and the operative word here is ‘slowly’) was sequestered to form that form carbonates, including the chalk that makes up the white cliffs of Dover. These carbonates are then subsumed at the intersection of tectonic plates. Under the earth’s crust the carbonates break down to form CO2, which enters the atmosphere from volcanoes. The earth’s temperature is regulated by the CO2 concentration. High concentrations increase the surface temperature, which speed up the rate at which carbonates are formed, which results in the CO2 concentration going down. Low temperatures cause the rate of carbonate formation to slow down.
This reductionist approach, one in which evolution is seen as involving both cooperation and competition between species, and in which Le Chatelier’s Principle explains how systems reach equilibrium, is sufficient to explain the Gaia Hypothesis — the idea that the earth is a single entity. There is no need to involve teleological or spiritual philosophies.
Last week I attended a nation-wide webinar entitled the ‘Digital Gathering’ organized by the ‘Invite Welcome Connect‘ team. 1,800 people signed up, and around 1,000 attended. The attendees were Episcopalians from the United States and Canada. My estimate is that about half of the attendees were ordained clergy.
The theme of the webinar was to “present best -practices for a welcoming church in our new paradigm”— the new paradigm being the virtual church that has been forced on us by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The webinar was built around three panel discussions, each of which had three speakers. Most of the speakers were clergy leading churches, both large and small. The discussions were interesting and useful. But there was a certain wistfulness in them. It seemed as if, by and large, the message was one of,
How do we cope with the present situation until we can get back to normal?
In this context, “normal” would be traditional church services, held in traditional buildings, in which people can mingle with one another as they used to.
But maybe this is the wrong the message, the wrong goal.
Here is the ‘Old Normal’.
The chart shows membership in the Episcopalian church in recent years. The trend line is remarkably steady, with very little scatter. If extrapolated, it suggests that the church will have no members at all by the year 2045, just 25 years from now. In fact, the line will have an asymptote or hockey-stick shape toward the end. But the message is clear: the ‘Old Normal’ is not working, therefore we need to look for a ‘New Normal’. We also need to understand that the pandemic has not created this situation — the decline is a long-term trend.
The pandemic has, in fact, opened up new possibilities.
The following quotation from Fr. Rock Higgins is taken from the June 16, 2020 weekly newsletter of St. James the Less church in Ashland, Virginia.
Both our Sunday and Wednesday Morning Prayers average attendance is TRIPLE those who come when we were doing church in our space face-to-face. What is God doing? We will have to wait and see. Something big is happening. Our Noonday Prayer service was non-existent before this and now averages 67 people a day! I was telling a friend, “I now have a ministry that I did not know I had!” Thanks be to God!
Things have changed so fast and so quickly that no one understands what is going on. But it does seem as if the pandemic has pointed us to what could be an exciting and creative ‘New Normal’. Therefore, instead of hankering after the world that has left us, and that is not returning any time soon (if at all), maybe we should welcome the changes that have been forced upon us; maybe we should welcome the virtual church and the opportunities that it opens up.
In last week’s post — The New Normal (6) — Standards — we mentioned that we have added a new chapter to the draft of the book Faith in a Changing Climate. The chapter title is ‘Dress Rehearsal’. We look at some of the lessons we can learn from the current COVID-19 pandemic, and how those lessons can be applied to the bigger picture of climate change and resource depletion.
The pandemic is still in its early stages; none of us know what its long-term consequences are going to be — so much depends on whether we can find a vaccine and/or an effective treatment. Applying lessons from the pandemic is very much a work in progress. There is, however, one immediate lesson, and that is the need for humility when making forecasts. This is a subject that we have already touched on in the post The Future Is A Muddle, but it is worth looking at it again. To state the obvious, our world has been totally transformed in just three months. Yet no one saw this coming — it has been a total surprise and shock.
One of my favorite Bible readings is from 1 Corinthians in which the Apostle Paul says,
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
The picture at the top of this post shows a fogged-up window. At first all that we see is a blur. But, on closer inspection, we see that there are railings, a river and hills in the distance. We cannot see the details but we can see an outline — and the harder we look the more we see. So it is with our view of the future in an Age of Limits. We cannot predict what will happen in detail, and specific predictions are often (usually) wrong. But we have a general sense as where we may be heading. (Modern translations of the Bible suggest that the word ‘mirror’ would be a better choice than ‘glass’. In Paul’s day most mirrors distorted the reflection. But the conclusion is the same. We can see an outline, but the details are blurred.)
Our failure to have predicted this disease can create a cynical attitude toward all forecasting. As Scott Adams once said,
Methods for predicting the future: 1) read horoscopes, tea leaves, tarot cards, or crystal balls . . . collectively known as “nutty methods;” 2) put well-researched facts into sophisticated computer . . . commonly referred to as “a complete waste of time.”
But forecasting the impact of an issue such as climate change is not a “complete waste of time”. We know that it is happening right now, and we have a general sense of what is in store for us. We just need to be very careful about being too detailed or precise in our predictions.
“. . . the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
To which Pilate replies,
“What is truth?”
As we think about a theology for an Age of Limits I suggest that one of the bases should be, “Understand and tell the truth”. The key word in that phrase is “understand”. Christians know that they must never lie. They also know that they must always speak and act with integrity.
Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay
Telling the truth can go even further. In his book De Mendacio (On Lying), written around the year 395 CE, Augustine of Hippo says that it is wrong even to tell a white lie.
However, in our extraordinarily complex society it is often very difficult and challenging to determine exactly what is truth. Consider, for example, the effect of the current pandemic on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Environmentalists are encouraged that, in spite of the all the problems and tragedies that it has caused, the consequent reduction in economic activity has at least led to an improvement in air and water quality, and also in GHG emissions.
However, it turns out that the climate change benefits of the wrenching changes we are enduring have not been all that great. Greenhouse gas emissions are down by only 5% this year. How can that be? How can the enormous cutbacks and losses that we have endured led to such a small decrease in emissions?
To find an answer, let’s look at which sectors of the economy use fossil fuels. In round numbers they are:
Utilities — 45%
Industry — 25%
Transport — 20%
Residential — 5%
Other (including agriculture) — 5%
The picture below shows grounded jets at Dallas-Fort Worth airport. The transportation industry has gone through wrenching cutbacks. Indeed, the tourist industry has pretty well collapsed. But, as the highlighted number shows, that industry accounts for only 20% of GHG emissions, which is why the fall in overall emissions is less than most people would have expected.
A 5% cutback reduction in GHG emissions is good, but the cost has been enormous. Not only have tens of thousands of people died in the United States alone, there have been drastic reductions in the number of elective medical procedures, the consequences of which are not yet known. And more than 30 million people have lost their jobs in just two months. Environmentalists like to use the word “sustainable”. Well, what we have gone through in the last two months is unsustainable.
Yet the United Nations tells us that, if we are to stabilize the earth’s temperature, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7.6% per year, every year for the next twenty years. The reductions that we have seen this year have been insufficient to meet the U.N. goals in spite of the enormous human and economic cost. Yet, if we are to achieve the U.N. targets, we need to repeat what has happened this year every year for the next twenty years. That does not mean that we stabilize at current levels of economic activity and unemployment — it means that we repeat what we did this year every year for the next twenty years.
I started this post by posing Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” I suggest that, if the church is to provide the leadership that is so badly needed then people in the faith community need to understand complexities of the type just described. This will be difficult. Most church leaders have a liberal arts background, and have had little training in science, technology or mathematics. Hence, they do not gravitate to the type of analysis just provided. In particular, they rely on qualitative statements and goals. For example, the Episcopal church has published a mission statement to do with climate change. It reads in part,
Our General Convention policy calls on lawmakers to significantly reduce carbon emissions within this century
What is the meaning of the word “significant” in the above statement? We need to apply a number to that word. If the number we select is an annual reduction of 7.6% in GHG emissions per annum, then the mission statement needs to address the drastic economic and human changes that are implied. This is not to say that we should not strive to meet that goal, but it does mean that we understand the quantitative nature of truth.
We are entering a ‘New Normal’. This is an opportunity for the church to provide leadership, including cutting back on optional activities such as leisure flying.
This BBC report to do with the Virgin Atlantic airline raises the question as to whether or not we should bail out large industries with public funds. But specifically with regard to the airlines, is it appropriate to rescue them given the fact that they are a major contributor toward global warming?
A theme of this series is that we are entering a ‘New Normal’ as a result of the current pandemic. The world has changed irreversibly — there is no going back to the ‘Old Normal’. The situation provides the church with an opportunity to provide much-needed leadership. One aspect of such leadership could be to do with reducing our profligate lifestyle. We know that we are on a non-sustainable trajectory — we are entering an Age of Limits. Resource depletion, climate change, biosphere destruction, population overshoot — the litany is tedious and familiar. (The sketch shows some of the elements of the Age of Limits.)
The airline industry provides a good example of how we might use the current situation to change our trajectory.
Introduced in 1958, the Boeing 707 ushered in the jet age. Air travel was no longer a prerogative of the rich. Families and businesspeople could now routinely travel to distant locations at a reasonable cost. But we have also learned in the intervening years that air traffic is a major contributor toward environmental problems, particularly climate change and noise pollution. We have also learned during this pandemic that we actually don’t need mass air travel — any more than we needed it prior to the introduction of the Boeing 707. Business people have learned that they can conduct much of their work remotely, and families have learned that overseas vacations are something that are nice to have, but far from essential.
What will happen to air travel once the pandemic is brought under control? Will we return to the old ways? We know that airplanes are a major contributor toward climate change — can we take this opportunity to permanently cut back on air travel, and return the industry to where it was before the Boeing 707 and other airplanes created the situation we had immediately prior to the pandemic? We don’t know the future course of the pandemic. But we do know that it would be an enormous shame, even tragedy, if we cannot use this opportunity to live a reduced lifestyle, including less use of air travel.
For people of faith, living a reduced lifestyle should not be a challenge. Indeed, we are still in the Easter season — a time of the ultimate sacrifice. We know that we, as a society, need to cut back pollution and that we need to get to grips with climate change. Maybe we should voluntarily limit our use of air travel to what it was before 1958 — something that is a privilege, not something that we take for granted.
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
This is the fourth post in a series to do with the ‘New Normal’ that has been thrust upon us by the pandemic. The posts consider how people of faith and churches are being affected by the changes that are taking place, and also the opportunities for church leadership that these changes provide. An assumption behind all these posts is that there will indeed be a ‘New Normal’ — the ‘Old Normal’ is not returning. We cannot suddenly lay off more than 22 million people in just a few weeks in the United States alone and expect our economies simply to snap back to where they were. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the pandemic is still in its early stages. Some communities may believe that they have peaked, but there is every reason to believe that second and third waves of the disease could follow. (Some of the economic issues to do with the pandemic are discussed in a parallel series of posts entitled ‘The New PSM Normal’, where the letters PSM stand for Process Safety Management. The first post in that series is The New PSM Normal — Deflation.)
The distress, anxiety and economic devastation created by this pandemic provides an opportunity for the church to provide leadership. As we will discuss in future posts, science and technology seem to have met their nemesis – a new type of leadership and way of living is called for. But it is also interesting to see how the pandemic has affected the church in just a few short weeks, and to think about what the church of the future may look like. Therefore, in this post I would like to consider the sudden and unanticipated rise in the ‘Virtual Church’.
I am a member of a medium-sized Episcopal church. In response to the pandemic our church, like so many others, has totally reorganized its worship services and the manner in which it conducts its internal meetings. Services are transmitted using Facebook Live; meetings are held using Zoom or equivalent software. Our bishop, Susan Goff, has been ahead of the curve from the beginning as described in the post The New Normal (3) — Thrift, Frugality and Fasting. Now the diocese has now instructed us not to use our church premises at all. So, video services (such as this one) are now transmitted from the priest’s home. Participation from the music director and lay readers has been through the use of pre-recorded videos or audio clips that are spliced into the order of worship. (The videos are recorded and edited by the priest’s wife, so there are no physical distancing issues to worry about.)
Virtual church services are not new, of course, but the pandemic has suddenly made them a near-universal fixture. So here’s where we (and so many other churches) stand.
Our Sunday morning service is transmitted live from the priest’s study. It recorded so that people can view it later.
Our regular Wednesday morning service continues in the same manner.
Each day, except for Sunday, we have a shot noon-time prayer service, also transmitted live.
As we started this effort I anticipated that “attendance” at these services would go down; worship depends interaction between people, community singing and on the physical eucharist. I expected that, if people could not meet other people and physically participate in the service, then they would drift away. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Attendance at our virtual church services is much higher than it was when people had to physically show up. An informal review on the internet suggests that our experience is not unusual, many other churches have seen an increase in participation.
I am both encouraged and somewhat surprised at these results. One of the reasons for my surprise is that many of our regular attendees are toward the older end of the age spectrum and so, I would have thought, are not so adept at using video technology. This point of view may be incorrect. Many of these older members have children and grandchildren scattered around the country so they have been using video services to meet with their families for years.
Doubtless many people will be conducting formal studies that examine how the church has changed in the last few weeks. Here are a few initial thoughts.
No Going Back
I started this post by saying that we will not return to the ‘Old Normal’. What the ‘New Normal’ will look like is anyone’s guess, but virtual worship in one form or another is an integral part of our future.
In recent weeks, many organizations have found that working from home is viable for much of what they do. Those organizations whose policies required people to show up at the office are going to be under considerable pressure to reconsider those policies. The same applies to church services and meetings. Until now, virtual church services have, in general, been something of an add-on to the physical service. That will no longer be the case — indeed the opposite may happen. The church building will become more like a studio than a traditional church.
Quality vs. Quantity
Although we can count the number of people who are participating in our virtual services, it is much more difficult to assess the quality of that participation. When someone is sitting in the pews they may not be paying much attention, indeed they may be day-dreaming, but at least we know that they are present. When they attend a virtual service we do not know what else they may be doing. Is he or she also answering emails, playing a video game or browsing the news channels? We don’t know.
The person leading the service can also see which parts of the service are the most popular and meaningful by keeping an eye on the people who are coming and going at different times.
As the church community has shrunk many churches face a chronic challenge: how to finance the maintenance of large buildings that are too big for today’s smaller congregations. Virtual services may provide an answer. Churches will be able to maintain their service and mission to the community without needing those buildings. The church can move into a small office, and conduct its business from there.
Convenience and Practicality
A virtual church can attract those who cannot attend a physical church. They include the disabled, the house-bound, those traveling on business (not such a large group these days), shift workers, caregivers and those without transportation.
The pandemic is causing many people to think about more fundamental values. Such people may be reluctant to enter a traditional church building — indeed, for many of them such an environment brings back bad memories. But they may be willing to join a virtual service, especially if they feel that they are not just being preached at.
Age of Limits
The posts at this blog are to do with the long-term effects of what we refer to as the ‘Age of Limits’ — resource depletion, climate change and population overshoot. The current pandemic has reminded us that we are not in control of the natural world; indeed, “Nature Bats Last”. Yet many aspects of our ‘Old Normal’ have not changed in recent weeks. For example, we still have the electricity we need to power our virtual devices and the raw materials such as lithium that are needed to manufacture those devices are in supply. If the time comes when resources such as these are not provided then our virtual church will have to shut down, and we will have to revert to physical meetings.
Just before the virus hit we toured Israel. Part of the visit was to drive around the Sea of Galilee. This was the area where Jesus conducted much of his ministry. We also visited Qumran and saw the desert areas that are part of the Bible story. As I looked at the hills from which Jesus would have preached the Sermon on the Mount and at the desert areas where he fasted I wondered what he and the other religious leaders of biblical times would have thought about how we are worshiping now. It’s a long way from there to the modern virtual church. Are we doing the right thing?
Spring is Sprung
We are trying to practice what we preach. We have cut some asparagus this spring. Here a picture of our first fruits of 2020; two radishes. The lettuce, cabbage, peas, potatoes, leek, onions, blueberries and (in the greenhouse) bush beans and tomatoes are looking great. Just don’t tell the critters in our neighborhood.
If you are making masks, we found the plan provided in the New York Times (and other newspapers) to be useful. We used old pillow cases for the fabric. Medical-quality masks have a metal strip at the top. The NYT design does not, but we found that a pipe cleaner inserted does the job well. (If you don’t smoke a pipe but do have children you may find that they used pipe cleaners in some of their projects.)
Rumor has it that there was a Virginia law that prohibited anyone from wearing a mask when entering a bank, and that they have had to change the law. It turns out that the rumor is not true; nevertheless it is still a good idea not to be masked like this before going into a bank.
The last few weeks have been, as the Chinese say, “interesting times”, both for myself and for society as a whole. At a personal level we embarked on a 10-day trip to Israel about four weeks ago. It was the first time that I had been to that nation and I really enjoyed it. Israel must have more history per square mile than any other country in the world. Such a trip brings to life so many of the stories and events that we read about in the Bible. I now find it much easier to visualize, for example, Jesus giving his Sermon on the Mount (even if we do not know the exact location of that event).
On our return to the United States I went down with a fever. The symptoms were mild. But, given all the concerns to do with the corona virus, I decided to check in at our local health care facility since I had just returned from an overseas trip. The good news is that I only had a case of the normal flu (Type A). I have also had to work through one or two other health issues — all of which are working out well, but all of which required me to step back, which is why there have been no posts for the last couple of weeks.
During the same time period the world around us changed a lot, maybe irreversibly, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. How it will all play out remains to be seen, but we have already learned much about ourselves and our society.
Our church was quick to respond. In the very first stages of the crisis our bishop issued instructions prohibiting gatherings. For at least two weeks (and probably much longer) all group activities, including Sunday morning worship, will not happen. In response, we quickly organized a successful Sunday morning video church service.
All of these events created a period of enforced idleness for me and so gave me an opportunity to reflect on the goals of this blog — ‘Faith in an Age of Limits’ — and of the associated Facebook page: ‘Climate Change Theology’. In particular, I took advantage of the downtime to write this rather lengthy post — it summarizes some of my thoughts to do with the Age of Limits and with the implications of the pandemic that is suddenly upon us. Although we face lots of difficulties, and although the future looks challenging — to put it mildly — the predicaments that we face do provide an opening for the church and for people of faith to provide leadership.
What form that leadership may take, and how people of faith and the church overall can provide that leadership, best serve their communities, both through service and spiritual support, both for the long-term crisis that I refer to as the ‘Age of Limits’ and the short to medium-term issues raised by the pandemic is the focus of this series of posts.
I started this blog in August of last year and have published about 49 posts during that time. I have also completed the first draft of my book A New City of God — Faith in a Changing Climate. Now is a good time to back up and to provide an overview of what I see as the challenges that we face, and how they present an opportunity for church leadership.
I first took an interest in what I now refer to as the ‘Age of Limits’ about ten years ago. This was the era of ‘Peak Oil’ — the idea that crude oil is a finite resource that we are using irreversibly and that will eventually be depleted. (We now understand that the issue is not to do with the amount of crude oil in the ground per se, but the amount of oil that can be affordably extracted. The same idea applies to all other natural resources.)
This initial interest in peak oil was a starting point in understanding that we are facing many other types of limit, including climate change caused by our CO2 emissions, population overshoot, destruction of the biosphere and an end to continuous economic growth. Some of these factors are shown in the following sketch.
Predicaments, Not Problems
A key insight, and an idea that threads through much of what I write, can be summarized as follows,
We are confronted with predicaments, not problems — problems have solutions, predicaments do not. There are no solutions, only responses.
I am an engineer who has worked in the process and energy industries for many years. Like most engineers my mental model is that there are always solutions to the challenges that we face. Indeed, given sufficient money, commitment and time we can not only maintain Business as Usual (BAU), but we can even expect life to be better and better. Material progress is part of our faith system. The idea that progress has come to an end, and may even be going into reverse, challenges our fundamental view of the world.
The 300-Year Party
A second key insight is to do with the concept of the 300-year party. All living beings — humans are no exception — live by taking in energy. That energy is used for basic survival, growth and reproduction. If we take in more energy that we use then we can grow and prosper. If, on the other hand, we expend more energy that we take in then eventually we die.
The energy used by all living species, including humanity until recent times, comes from the sunlight that strikes the earth’s surface. That light is used by plant life. Some of that plant life is eaten by animals, including ourselves. (The post ERoEI discusses this background in greater detail.) Such a lifestyle is — to use a currently fashionable word — sustainable. It is the world of biblical times.
But then, quite suddenly, we found a new source of energy: fossil fuels — first coal, then oil and natural gas. No longer did we have to live in energy balance with our environment. We learned how to exploit millions of years’ worth of stored sunlight. (If I were to pick a date for that event I would go with the Thomas Newcomen’s invention of the atmospheric engine in the year 1712.) The use of this stored sunlight meant that we no longer needed to live in energy balance with our environment, we started a party that is now coming to an end.
The analogy is with someone who lives on a modest income. She spends no more than she makes in wages and has only a small bank balance. Then she receives an inheritance. Her bank balance increases but her income stays the same. For a short while she can afford a wonderful life style: a large home, a new car, vacations around the world. But, eventually, the money runs out and she is forced back to living on her old income. But now she is saddled with expenses that she never had before, so she is worse off than she was before receiving the inheritance. She should, of course, have saved the inheritance and spent it carefully and with an eye to the future, and for her children and grandchildren. But she didn’t. We are in the same place as that lady. We inherited and then literally burned through an inheritance of stored energy with hardly a thought for what we would do when it ran out. We just assumed that “They” would “think of something”. After all, if “they” can invent the cell phone then surely “they” can find a new source of energy that can keep the party going.
But the 300-year period during which we have gobbled up the planet’s resources at such an astonishing rate is coming to an end. We are learning that our faith in science and technology is a false faith. Moreover, while we were consuming the earth’s resources in such a cavalier manner that we have created waste products — of which carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is probably the most important — and have just thrown them away — not acknowledging that there is no such place as “away”.
On top of all this, we have used the gift of stored sunlight to support an unprecedented growth in the earth’s population go from 1 billion to 7.5 billion. The chart shows that the population of the world in biblical times was well under a billion. In the late 18th century, following the start of the industrial revolution (which would be better named the fossil fuel revolution) we see a dramatic increase. There is a further sudden increase around the year 1950. The chart also shows how such increases closely track our production of crude oil.
We hear much talk about alternative energies, sustainability and “green living”. These are good ideas and they deserve our full support. But they are not even close to providing the energy base that we need to maintain our current extraordinarily, energy-extravagant lifestyle. Alternative energies do not provide a solution to the energy crisis that we face, they only help us respond and adapt.
If our faith in endless material progress is misplaced then maybe we need to consider the role of religious faith. Indeed, it is this thought that provides the inspiration for this blog and the book I am writing. In particular, people of faith should consider how they can help the world respond to the hard choices that we are all going to have to make in the coming decades.
As I was researching the material for this blog and the book I learned about that remarkable man, Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE). Augustine lived at a time when the western Roman Empire was in decline. Indeed, during his lifetime the City of Rome was itself was sacked for the first time in centuries. He understood that all cities of men, indeed all human organizations, eventually fail (just look at all the “failed states” in the Hebrew bible). Only the City of God, he argued, is permanent. (Hence the title of his seminal work, the book City of God.)
It is this concept that is central to my interpretation as to what is going on now in our society. Our current ‘City of Man’ — an industrial culture based on the gift of stored energy in the form of fossil fuels — is winding down, and it is why I chose the domain name ‘New City of God’. What will our new City of God look like?
In his day Augustine recognized that the situation provided an opportunity for the church to provide badly needed leadership. So, it is in our time. There is, however, one major difference between our world and that of the western Roman Empire. Our “empire” in based on technological advance. This means that our leaders will need to understand concepts that would have been foreign to Augustine and the other church fathers. These include science, ecology, thermodynamics, systems theory and the management of very large projects.
A few years ago, our parish was looking for a priest. So, we set up a search committee. Members of the congregation were asked to tell the committee what they would like to see in the successful candidate. The normal attributes of the ideal candidate were listed: strong preaching, good at working with young people, sound financial management, a bible scholar, and so on. I suggested that, in addition to all these talents, that the successful candidate should have a good grasp of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. People laughed, and said that such a condition would mean that we would never find a priest. They were correct, but I was not joking. We cannot solve our problems/predicaments if we do not understand the root cause of those problems.
The Corona Virus
Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
In a startlingly short period of time COVID-19 has come to dominate our lives. This is obviously a rapidly changing situation, but already it has generated the following thoughts and questions.
Serious as the impact of COVID-19 may be, it pales into insignificance when compared to climate change and other Age of Limits issues. Yet the virus has totally dominated our lives. This is discouraging — it is yet another instance of short-term thinking (remember the example of the lady who spent her inheritance with no thought for the future. We are all Prodigal Sons.)
The pandemic has shown the importance of believing scientists and other professionals in a time of crisis. Faith is based not only on prayer and the study of scriptures, but also an understanding of science and technology.
Once more, as in Augustine’s time, the church is provided with an opportunity for leadership.
Demise of Globalization
I started this post by saying that I am an engineer who has spent a career working in the process and energy industries. For much of that time the dominant economic theme has been one of globalization and its cousins: Just-in-Time (JIT) management and the use of single-source suppliers. Over the years borders have become ever more porous — people, goods, money and (yes) diseases have found it easier and easier to travel the world.
Even before the corona pandemic, there were signs that globalization was running into trouble. Political movements such as ‘Brexit’ and ‘Make America Great’ showed that many working people had lost confidence in in the promises that were being made. But the pandemic has highlighted the brittleness of the supply chains on which we have come to depend. To take just one example, an oil company that operates platforms in the Gulf of Mexico is running into difficulties because some of its critical equipment comes from a single source — a source that unfortunately happens to be in Italy — a nation that is currently in lockdown mode.
The world that we have created is extraordinarily complex; it has so many moving parts that it can be very difficult to understand what is going on. Richard Heinberg provides the following example of systems complexity.
Someone gets sick in China in December of 2019, and by March of 2020 the US shale oil industry is teetering on the brink. What’s the chain of connection?
January 2020: The coronavirus epidemic explodes, forcing China to institute a massive quarantine.
Chinese oil demand craters as a result of hundreds of millions staying home and untold numbers of businesses going offline.
March 7: Saudi Arabia asks its OPEC partners and Russia to cut oil output to keep prices from crashing.
March 9: Russia refuses, so the Saudis decide to provoke a price war by producing even more oil and selling it at a discount.
As a result, world oil prices fall from $50 (Feb. 17) to $33 (March 9).
Meanwhile it is arguably the US, not Russia, that will be hurt most by the price war. As the world’s largest oil producer, the US has seen nearly all of its spectacular production growth in recent years coming from light, tight oil produced by fracking. But fracking is expensive; even when prices were higher, the fracking industry struggled to turn a profit on this unconventional petroleum source. With an oil price heading toward $30 or possibly even lower, not even the most efficient fracking companies with the very best acreage can make investors happy. So, dozens of domestic US oil producers are set to go bust.
I grew up at a time of high inflation. That was bad, but deflation is worse, and it is deflation that is likely to be in our economic future.
The driving deflationary force will be the lack of spending due to lack of wages. Businesses of all types lay off or furlough their staff in response to the pandemic. These people no longer receive wages, so they cannot spend money on goods and services. Hence economic activity slows down. Even people who remain employed or who have savings reduce their spending because (a) there are fewer places to spend their money, (b) they want to avoid mingling with other people, and (c) they are holding on to their money for a “rainy day”. The drop in demand for goods and services leads to more closures of factories and stores, so economic activity is reduced further and yet more people are laid off. It’s a vicious circle.
Prices for goods and services are likely to go down, but may not always do so. However, because people anticipate price reductions, they hold off making optional purchases “until next week”.
There is a contraction in the money supply and in financial credit. This is presumably why the United States Federal Reserve has reduced interest rates and bought bonds — they are trying to make sure that there is sufficient money and credit in the system.
Those who are in debt, particularly those people who have lost their jobs, are in trouble. Their income has shrunk or disappeared, but they still have to pay make payments for their rent, student loans or credit cards. Moreover, the interest rates on those loans will remain at their previous high levels. Moreover, these people may not be able to borrow money to keep themselves temporarily solvent since the value of many of their assets will have declined.
If a borrower defaults then the loss will have to be absorbed by the financial institution that made the loan or by the taxpayer.
As I write, there is a run on the grocery stores as people give way to panic buying. But, if the above analysis to do with deflation is correct, there should not be many long-term shortages (in spite of the cracks in the supply chains). Instead, there will be a shortage of people with sufficient money to buy the goods and services that are available.
The image I have of the Great Depression is of farmers who have milk for sale but their hungry, unemployed customers have no money. So the farmers wound up pouring the milk down the drain. That’s deflation.
Churches around the world are responding in real time to the challenges of this pandemic. It seems to me that many of them are doing a good job — they are looking for innovative solutions to the rather frightening new world that we have entered. But the pandemic could also be a time when church leaders can think through the nature of their mission, both material and spiritual, in a world of declining resources, climate change and population overshoot.
As I thought more about the intersection between technology and faith I realized that I was circling the issue of “The study of God and of God’s relation to the world”, i.e., theology.
Theology does not have a good image. It is often seen as being an intellectual game that is neither relevant nor interesting to the ordinary person of faith. Theologians are jokingly perceived as those who wonder “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. That phrase has itself become a metaphor for time-wasting and irrelevant debate.
A leading theologian of our times is Rowan Williams, now retired from his post as Archbishop of Canterbury. Much of what Williams says, particularly with regard to climate change and the biosphere, makes a lot of sense and is excellent advice. But here is an example of his theological writing (from the year 2007).
A doctrine like that of the Trinity tells us that the very life of God is a yielding or giving-over into the life of an Other, a ‘negation’ in the sense of refusing to settle for the idea that normative life or personal identity is to be conceived in terms of self-enclosed and self-sufficient units. The negative is associated with the ‘ek-static’, the discovery of identity in self-transcending relation.
A person who is frightened about a pandemic disease or who is wondering how to juggle the requirements of holding down a job while looking after children who are no longer at school needs a theology that “speaks to their condition”.
For many people of my generation a writer that had great influence was C.S. Lewis. In books such as Mere Christianity. Lewis explained theology clearly and showed how it fit into our lives.
Some thoughts as to what a theology that is relevant to the times may look like are provided below.
If theologians are to provide guidance and understanding to the rest of us then they need to have a good grasp of systems theory. They need to understand how our highly complex and interactive world works.
Theology Is Personal
Theology is often perceived as being dry, pedantic and dull. Maybe one reason for this perception is that theologians seem to be like theoretical physicists who are looking for a Grand Unified Theory that explains everything, including some of the deepest moral and spiritual questions that we face. The catch is that we not like scientists standing outside the system we are trying to understand; it is God that is outside the system, He is external to us. We are like people living in a two-dimensional world when God operates in three dimensions. We cannot come up with a theological Grand Unified Theory.
In fact, it often seems as if the best theology is personal in nature. This may be one reason I based some of my thinking on Augustine’s seminal work City of God. The ideas in his book are central to Christian thinking and to scholastic theology, but no one would claim that the book is an easy read. Indeed, it seems as if it remains in need of a good copy editor. But City of God is not his only work. Augustine also wrote Confessions — one of the first personal works in our literary canon. It is not quite a full autobiography, but the book does present Augustine as being fully human, with all that that means. It make his theology personal and relevant to us all.
Theology Should Be Practical
Professional theologians divide their discipline into four major categories: biblical, historical, dogmatic and practical. Of these, the one that is of most interest to the person in the pew is ‘Practical Theology’. Osmer has organized this topic around four questions,
What is going on?
Why is it going on?
What ought to be going on?
How might we respond?
These questions seem to summarize many of the thoughts that have already been presented in this post.
In his posts at Experimental Theology, Richard Beck points out that the social justice movement is, at its heart, a moral movement.
. . . it is taken as axiomatic among social justice warriors that oppression and injustice are systemic problems requiring systemic solutions. Our problems are not moral. You hear this claim every time you hear a social justice warrior throw shade on the notion that change doesn’t happen by asking people to change their hearts.
. . . by pointing out the moral and spiritual dimensions of justice work in these posts I’m not denying the systemic side of the equation. My argument isn’t reductionist (systemic or moral?), it’s holistic (systemic plus moral!).
His argument applies equally well to the manner in which we respond to the Age of Limits and to the corona virus pandemic. The challenges that we face are systems issues, and it is our responsibility to do our best to understand such systems. Indeed, much of my writing at this blog and in my book is to do with how the elements of systems interact with one another. These systems can be to do with basic science and thermodynamics, or they may be about human activities such as the management of very large projects. However, the manner in which which we understand and respond to issues such as climate change and the corona pandemic is fundamentally one of morality, not systems theory.
Just as Augustine and others of his time worked out a theology that provided a foundation of intellectual life for the coming centuries, so we need a theology that will have to involve a mix of traditional faith topics, such as prayer and the study of scripture, along with an understanding of science and technology.
Three Theological Points
It seems to me that a theology for our times must grasp the complex nature of the predicaments that we face before we can understand the nature of God and the meaning of religion in our time. I propose the following three points as the basis for discussion. It is my hope that professional theologians will find these points worthy of consideration as they think about the world that we are entering.
Understand and tell the truth.
Accept and adapt.
Live within the biosphere.
I will explore these three points in future posts. In this post I will jot down just a few words with regard to them in the context of current events.
1. Understand and Tell the Truth
It is the responsibility of people of faith and of church leaders to tell the truth — at least as they see it. We are already finding that those politicians who have consistently lied to us over the years no longer have credibility when they speak about the current crisis. (My impression is that our church leaders have done a good job so far of being honest and forthright. Congratulations to them.)
But telling the truth goes beyond simply not lying. It means that we have a responsibility to understand the nature of the complex systems that we have created. For example, is the relationship between the corona pandemic and low oil prices, as described earlier in this post, true? So, is it good that oil prices go down? After all, low oil prices can stimulate the economy (which is good), but low oil prices will lead to people in the energy industries being laid off (which is bad). What is the truth regarding this complex situation? It’s tricky.
2. Accept and Adapt
The above statement is based on the assumption that we face predicaments, not problems. In the case of COVID-19 we will, presumably, eventually come to terms with the disease; it will not go away, but it is likely to become more of a background concern that we learn to live with (rather like the flu now). But many of the associated problems, such as the snapping of brittle supply chains, social distancing and the onset of deflation, could permanently alter our society, and not necessarily for the better. We will have to learn how to adapt to these new conditions.
Maybe the pandemic will serve as a rehearsal for the longer-term response to the Age of Limits predicaments that we have already described.
3. Live Within the Biosphere
The root cause of many of our problems is that we humans have acted as if we are somehow outside of nature — the natural world is something that we control for our own benefit. The pandemic has taught us just how wrong this point of view is — we are not in control of God’s world, we are a part of God’s world.
Christians and people of the Bible face a special challenge; they may have to abandon some details of the older interpretations religious texts. For example, following the flood, in Genesis 9 God says to Noah and his sons,
Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.
Well, we pretty much aced that one, and look where it brought us. But, in an over-populated, polluted, resource-depleted world this verse is hard to defend. We need a new way of living within the biosphere.
Maybe the following verses from Ecclesiastes 1 (which are, admittedly, taken out of context) are more appropriate.
Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.
All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
The Church’s Opportunity
We live in difficult and unprecedented times. The industrial/fossil fuel revolution — the basis of so much of our prosperity — is winding down; the future looks increasingly uncertain and bleak; we thought that we had built a society that we thought was somehow outside of nature. Now we are forcefully reminded that the forces of nature do not necessarily conform to our wishes.
These times do, however, provide an opportunity for the church to provide leadership. Many of the old answers to do with our political and economic systems will no longer work. (I found the following article in The Atlantic magazine to be particularly pertinent in this context.)
The situation provides an opportunity for the church not only to respond, but also to provide leadership. Church leaders will be called upon to explain why we are living in difficult times — they will be faced with the age-old question, “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?” They will also be called upon to come up with new initiatives and practical responses. For example, if globalization is indeed moving into reverse, we will see more interest in the development of local communities — the parish concept.
Book: A New City of God
I have completed the first draft of my book A New City of God — Faith in a Changing Climate. I will be looking for reviewers — more on this later. In the meantime, the current Table of Contents can be downloaded in .pdf format here.
Many people of faith, including seminarians and ordained clergy, are not trained in science or technology. They are charged with activities such as preaching, managing church finances, caring for the sick and leading spiritual retreats. These activities and responsibilities do not require an understanding of technology, systems engineering or quantification. However, as we enter the Age of Limits it will be necessary for us all to have a basic grasp of technology and its limits. Posts such as Essential Petrochemicals, Of Priests and Thermodynamics and Proper 23: The Enemy is Physics challenge such assumptions.
One technical issue that is fundamental to much of what is written at this site is the concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI). This topic is discussed in detail in the chapter entitled ‘Alice and the Red Queen’ in the ebook Age of Limits – 1. A summary is provided here.
The basic idea behind ERoEI is that all systems, including all living creatures and all human beings, need energy in order to live, grow and reproduce. But the act of acquiring energy requires the expenditure of energy. Expressed as a simple equation,
Available (Net) Energy = (Gross Energy – Energy Expended)
Gross Energy is the total amount of energy that is taken in. Energy Expended is the energy needed to find and consume the Gross Energy. Available or Net Energy is what remains. If Net Energy is positive then the system or organism flourishes. If Net Energy is negative then, once it has used up its own internal reserves, the organism will die.
Imagine a person living a simple hunter-gatherer lifestyle. He or she expends energy throughout the day gathering edible plants and hunting animal prey. That is the Energy Expended term. The person eats the food he or she has gathered, thus providing the Gross Energy. The Net Energy is the difference between these two terms.
A term that is frequently used in this context is Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI), which can be defined as,
ERoEI = Gross Energy / Energy Expended
If a living organism has an ERoEI of unity then it will spend all of its energy finding energy (food) just to keep itself alive. If the value falls below unity then the organism dies. Only if ERoEI is greater than one will the organism have surplus energy for growth and reproduction. Hunter-gatherers typically have an ERoEI of about 1.5. In other words, they spend 2/3 of their energy looking for and consuming new sources of energy (food).
About 10,000 years ago societies in different places started to develop agriculture. Doing so gives that society a much higher ERoEI value, probably in the 6-8 range. The surplus energy provides the foundation for civilized society, a society that can now afford luxuries such as armies, buildings, priests and writing.
Then, about 300 years ago we learned how to exploit the energy in fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Doing so dramatically increased society’s ERoEI value. Now humans, through the use of this stored energy, have ERoEI values that can be as high as 100:1. This surplus provides the foundation for everything we take for granted in our modern way of living.
The catch is that we have used up the easy-to-find-and-extract energy sources, the low-hanging fruit. So now we are forced to spend an ever-increasing proportion of our energy simply finding and extracting new sources of energy to replace what we have used. The chart plots Net Energy against ERoEI. It can be seen that, as ERoEI falls from 100 to 20, most of the Gross Energy is available as Net Energy. But, below an ERoEI of about 5:1 Net Energy plummets. We fall off the Energy Cliff.
It is this decline in ERoEI, particularly the fact that we are reaching a point where we will soon be falling off the cliff’s edge, that is the root cause of so many of our difficulties. There are no high-density sources of energy available to use that would allow us to move back along the curve (with the possible exception of nuclear power, but that comes with its own set of problems).
It is difficult to calculate ERoEI values for various reasons. For example, government subsidies will skew any analysis. Nevertheless, we can develop some very rough ERoEI values for various energy sources.
Oil (conventional onshore) 20
Oil imports 12
Natural gas 10
Shale oil 5
Bitumen tar sands 3
Ethanol from corn <1 to 5
Regardless of the energy source ERoEI for society overall is declining inexorably and new technologies and sources of energy have lower values than more traditional sources (with some exceptions — the cost of solar panels has come down a lot in recent years, although even in this case there is a large amount of embedded energy in a solar panel, and that energy likely came from oil, gas or coal.)
There are also qualitative issues to consider. For example, low ERoEI projects generally impact the environment much more adversely than those with a higher value. In the “good old days” all you had to do was “stick a straw in the ground” and high quality oil flowed under its own pressure into the production pipeline. No longer — now the development of resources such as the bitumen tar sands has a huge environmental impact. And the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo catastrophe showed just how severe the environmental problems to do with deepwater drilling can be.
Political issues can also be a factor. For example, ethanol produced from corn may have an ERoEI that hovers around one, hence it does not make economic sense to bother with this activity. But the ethanol does provide a local source of fuel thus providing those countries that grow corn and make ethanol with some political independence. And the production process provides jobs for the local population.
Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, we are running faster and faster to stay in the same place.
The synod of the Anglican church has just passed the following Resolution.
That this Synod, recognising that the global climate emergency is a crisis for God’s creation, and a fundamental injustice . . . call upon all parts of the Church of England, including parishes, BMOs [Bishop Mission Orders], education institutions, dioceses, cathedrals, and the NCIs [National Church Institutions], to work to achieve year-on-year reductions in emissions and urgently examine what would be required to reach net zero emissions by 2030 in order that a plan of action can be drawn up to achieve that target;
(Additional sections discuss the reporting process.)
The following were my initial thoughts on reading this resolution.
Congratulations to the Anglican church on providing desperately-needed leadership. One of the themes of this blog is that climate change and related issues provide an an opportunity for the church. The Anglican church has stepped up to the plate.
Congratulations to the Anglican church for leading by example. The church leaders are not saying that you — whoever “you” may be — need to take action. The leaders are saying that we need to live the life we preach.
But, and there’s always a but — the devil is to be found in his usual location. What exactly do the church leaders mean by the word “zero”? Consider the following questions that the Resolution raises.
Do we prohibit the use of gasoline and diesel-powered automobiles to get to and from church? If so, how do we take care of those who want to come to church, but who are disabled or elderly? Do we need to sell off our church van?
Do we prohibit the use of electricity in the church because most electrical power plants use coal or natural gas as their primary source of energy? If we do stop using electricity how are we to have meetings after dusk unless we use candles? Does such a prohibition apply to the church’s telephones and email systems? After all, they use electricity provided by fossil fuels.
Do we stop printing church bulletins and newsletters? Computers, printers and “the cloud” are all heavy users of electricity. Moreover, the equipment itself contains large amounts of embedded energy.
Do the churches find a new source of fresh, clean water for use in their kitchens and bathrooms give that the water and sewer utilities use fossil fuel energy for their construction, maintenance and operation.
A picture of Thomas Cranmer, one of the founders of the Anglican church, is shown at the head of this post. In his day the industrial revolution had not yet started so society made virtually no use of fossil fuels. If we are to follow the Resolution to the letter then we will need to return to the early days of the Anglican church not just spiritually, but physically. Are people ready for that? There were no flush toilets in his day. It takes (fossil fuel) energy to manufacture the chemicals that ensure our potable water is, in fact, potable, and to pump that water to where it is needed, and then to treat the sewage that we create. (Roughly 10% of a barrel of crude oil goes to make petrochemicals.)
(One response to these questions is that we could use “alternative/green energy”. Leaving aside nuclear power, which has its own environmental baggage, the sources of alternative energy usually referenced are solar panels and wind turbines, along with the massive battery banks needed for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. But these items are not “fossil fuel free” — their manufacture, installation and operation requires the use of existing energy sources.)
The Resolution calls on church institutions to work out how to reach “zero emissions” by the year 2030. We are now in the year 2020. Given that committee meetings and task forces will all take time to reach their conclusions, this means that the church has about eight years to organize and implement what would be a truly radical program. Is such a goal realistic?
Another of the themes of this blog site is that we need to understand project management realities (the posts 40 Gigatons and The Slow Train illustrate this point). The fact that something can be done on a small scale does not mean that it can be quickly implemented on a national or international scale. Such projects take time, engineering resources, funding and political will. Above all, they require that people willingly reduce their material standard of living.
Once more, congratulations to the leaders of the Anglican church for providing such important and badly-needed leadership. The next step is for them to make it clear to all church members that this Resolution will require everyone to sacrifice many of the conveniences and comforts provided by industrial society.