One of the themes of this site is that there is an opportunity for the Christian church to provide leadership in the rather scary future that awaits us. But first we have to focus on Age of Limits issues, and stop placing gender debates up front and center — see the post Rearranging the (Episcopal) Deckchairs.
In Europe, Greta Thunberg has smashed all the memetic barriers succeeding in doing what nobody else had succeeded before: bringing the climate emergency within the horizon of the public and of the decision makers. In parallel, on the other side of the Atlantic, another young woman, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez has been doing something similar with her “Green New Deal.”
These are remarkable changes and I think it is not casual that they are brought by women. It had already happened during the early Middle Ages, when women took a prominent role in taking the lead in reshaping a dying empire into a new, vibrant civilization, one that we sometimes call the “Dark Ages” but that was a period of intelligent adaptation to scarcity. It was also a civilization displaying a remarkable degree of gender parity in comparison to what the European society was before and what would become later on.
I find it interesting that, unwittingly, I have been following the leadership of these two dynamic young ladies at this blog with my various posts to do with the Green New Deal and Skolstrejk för Klimatet.
This line of argument would suggest that, if the church wants to promote gender equality, then maybe direct advancement of that goal is not the way to go. Instead, we should provide leadership in our search for “intelligent adaptation to scarcity”. In doing so, we may find that much of our leadership will be provided by the likes of AOC and GT.
The image at the top of this post is taken from the cover of a book to be published by Devil’s Due. Of their book they say,
It’s no secret that AOC has become the unofficial leader of the new school, and has sparked life back into Washington and that’s reflected in the enthusiasm on display by the men and women contributing to this project. While we all don’t agree on everything, we share a common excitement for the breath of fresh air the new Congress brings.
It is too early to know if this young lady really has started a movement, but it is interesting to note that she herself cites Rosa Parks as one of the people who inspired her. Maybe she and other young people have started the equivalent of a new civil rights movement.
On March 6th of this year our local newspaper, the Ashland-Hanover Local, published an article to do with the building of a solar generating plant in our county. What struck me was the fact that the project is likely to be delayed for many months while it is reviewed by the normal political process.
the “Green New Deal goals” should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization.
The contrast between this ambitious program and the lack of urgency associated with projects such as the solar plant in our community could hardly be greater. If programs such as GND can generate that sense of urgency then more power to them. But so far, it has not happened.
Every week we release a section of the book A New City of God: Theology for an Age of Limits. We have modified our release program. Instead of publishing just the new pages, we will provide the entire book so far, including the current Table of Contents. This week we are up to the first part of Chapter 2 — A Personal Journey (the image is of Dante’s Forest Dark). The document is a .pdf file that can be downloaded at no cost here.
1 stordalen = 10,491 bacon cheeseburgers
As an engineer I like to think in numbers. Hence one of my favorite quotations is from Lord Kelvin (of degrees Kelvin fame) — yet another bewhiskered Victorian gentleman.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
One of the difficulties that many of us face when discussing environmental issues is to do with the units of measurement. We talk about our carbon footprint, but how is that footprint to be measured? Our knowledge is indeed of a “meagre and unsatisfactory kind”.
Late last year . . . the mass media trumpeted yet another study proclaiming yet another low-meat diet that would supposedly save the planet. The study was funded by a Norwegian vegan billionaire named Gunhild Stordalen. For a change, reporters actually looked into the story, and turned up the fact that Stordalen’s commitment to the environment apparently begins and ends on her dining table.
Diet aside, she’s got the same colossal carbon footprint as other members of her class; her idea of a modest wedding celebration, for example, included flying a private jet full of friends from Oslo to Marrakesh and back.
(Math isn’t my strong suit, so one of my readers obligingly crunched the numbers, and showed that this little jaunt of Stordalen’s—one of many each year in her globehopping lifestyle, by the way—had a carbon footprint equal to no fewer than 10,491 of the bacon cheeseburgers she insists nobody ought to eat.)
So maybe, if we decide to walk rather than drive to the grocery store, we can determine how the impact of our decision by measuring the number of stordhalens saved.
(One person pointed out that ‘stor’ is Norwegian for ‘large’, whereas ‘liten’ means ‘small’. The stordalen is too large a unit for daily use, but if litendalen is a thousandth of a stordalen then it would be equivalent to 10.5 bacon cheeseburgers — a more practical measure.)
Live the Life Preached
The above is, of course, written somewhat tongue in cheek (although the idea of quantifying environmental impact is a good one). But the point that Greer makes is serious: we must live the life we preach.
He made the same point in an earlier post when talking about Al Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth. Gore’s book and the matching video introduced many people to the ideas of global warming and climate change. (Gore had been Vice President under Bill Clinton, and came close to winning the presidency himself.)
Although what Gore said was properly researched, his message lost credibility because his lifestyle does not match his message. He lives in a large air-conditioned mansion (and owns other properties), flies around the world in jet airplanes and eats a high meat diet. If he had really wanted to get his message across Gore would have moved to a small home without air conditioning, cut back on long distance travel (and then only by train), and eaten a mostly vegetarian diet.
To bring the topic up to date, consider the reporting of the New York Post to do with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s carbon footprint. The report states,
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign logged 1,049 car service transactions totaling over $23,000 between May 16, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018, The Post found. Her campaign once booked 26 car-service transactions in a single day.
Even though her Queens HQ was just a one-minute walk to the 7 train, her campaign only made 52 MetroCard purchases, spending about $8,300.
And despite high-speed rail being the cornerstone of her green strategy, the Democratic firebrand took Amtrak 18 times, compared to 66 airline transactions costing $25,174.54 during the campaign season.
Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly attributed her success in beating Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley to walking the streets of her district, which includes parts of Queens and the Bronx.
“I knocked doors until rainwater came through my soles,” she tweeted last June, famously donating her worn-out campaign shoes to the Cornell Costume Institute for an exhibit about women and empowerment.
But Ocasio-Cortez and her staff appear to have done much less walking after she vanquished Crowley in the party’s June 2018 primary.
Instead, her campaign embraced the friendly skies, logging 66 airline transactions costing $25,174.54 during campaign season.
The Democratic firebrand or her staff took Amtrak far less — only 18 times — despite high-speed rail being the cornerstone of her save-the-world strategy.
Ocasio-Cortez has drawn considerable praise for her Green New Deal proposals, including at our site, and it may be that reports such as the above come from her political opponents. Nevertheless such articles can knock her message badly off course.
I have already had much to say about Augustine’s works De Mendacio and City of God. But there is another work of his that is important in this context, and that is his Confessions. In one of the world’s first autobiographies he opens himself to his readers. He knows that that, before telling others how to behave, he has to act correctly himself. He takes very seriously the words from Matthew 7.
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
One reason that the way in which we live matters is that none of us have enough time to investigate all the issues that we face. So we tend to base our opinions on the character of the person presenting a point of view. (Advertisers know that the best reference is from a person that you know and trust.)
This idea of living the by the standards that are preached is particularly important for rich and powerful people such as the Stordalens or Al Gore. Otherwise, ordinary people will suspect that they are being asked to sacrifice their standard of living so that the wealthy can continue to live in luxury.
The principle of living the life preached is one of the foundations of the monastic way of life. This is an important topic, and one that we will discuss in future posts. At this point it is sufficient to say that, when societies decline, there is often a revival of the monastic ideal. In the case of the western Roman Empire the person who embodied this ideal was Benedict of Nursia.
The Benedictine ideals are usually condensed into three principles: poverty, chastity and obedience. Although Benedict’s rule is demanding, it is not a harsh; indeed, it is built around a spirit of balance, moderation and reasonableness. The key words are ora et labora: pray and work.
In his book The Benedict Option Rod Dreher suggests that Christians can form Benedict-style communities within the larger secular society. It is not necessary to actually become a monk or nun to follow many of Benedict’s principles.
The counter-argument to Greer’s point of view is that the actions of individuals and small groups of people are not enough to make a difference. Indeed, Jevons Paradox suggests that whatever we do will be cancelled out by someone else’s actions. For example, we may choose to drive a smaller car to save fuel. But the fuel that we do not use is not really saved — it is simply used by someone else, somewhere else.
Therefore, it is argued, it does not matter if we personally lead a profligate lifestyle, just as long as we are able to change society’s rules and standards. The catch with this argument, as we have just seen, is that it can be perceived as being hypocritical and self-serving.
In the words of Mahatma Gandhi,
Be the change that you wish to see in the world.
The Christian Response
In these posts I always try to come back to what the issues that we discuss mean to today’s Christian church. By doing so we may be able to figure out some aspects of a theology for our times.
The first decision that the individual Christian and that the church overall has to make is whether to work top-down or bottom-up, i.e., whether to take political action to change the actions of governments and large corporations, or whether to concentrate on individual lifestyles.
The ideal answer is that a person will adopt a simple lifestyle and then work with the church overall to change national policies. In practice, the decision will probably depend at least partly on the personalities of the people involved. Some people enjoy working with others who are trying to change policies, others prefer to work by themselves or with small groups.
A Low-Carbon Lifestyle
If we are to live the life that we preach then we need to cut back on those actions that have a large carbon footprint. But this is not always easy or justified. For example, we know that commercial aircraft are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases. Therefore we should stop flying. But does that mean that a person living 3,000 miles from her children and grandchildren must give up seeing them? We might say that she should take the train, or that she should drive her car. But what if there is no train service, or if her medical condition prohibits long-distance driving?
Or maybe someone with a large garden decides to grow her own vegetables and other produce. This is obviously good for the environment, and it reduces resource consumption. But the seeds that she purchases are delivered to the local nursery using the same supply chains that deliver food to the supermarkets. If the supply chains were to collapse she is in a pickle. So maybe she should save her own seeds. But many of the vegetables we grow now are hybrids so their seeds may not grow true. So now this person is into seed-saving, with all the work that that involves.
None of this is easy.
The point is that it is easy to say that we should live a simply, but such a decision is more difficult to implement than it first appears. We are not going to jump from our SUVs to a Cistercian monastery all at once.
Perfect is the Enemy of Good Enough
I started this post with some comments on the importance of quantification. Continuing with that theme, it is useful to keep in mind the Pareto Principle, often referred to as the 80/20 rule. The Principle was developed by yet another bewhiskered Victorian-era thinker: Vilfredo Pareto — an Italian economist and misanthrope. He noted that most of the wealth of the Italian communities he looked at was not spread evenly — in fact, typically about 20% of any population owned 80% of the wealth.
His principle, which, to the best of my understanding, has no theoretical underpinning, is widely observed to be true in many fields of human activity. It can be expressed by the following equation,
log n = c + m * log x
where n is the number of items whose value is greater than x; c and m are constants.
Examples of the principle’s applications in an industrial context include:
80% of a company’s sales come from 20% of its customers.
80% of a company’s sales are made by 20% of the sales force.
20% of the workers are involved in 80% of the accidents.
20% of the equipment items cause 80% of the facility shutdowns.
20% of a company’s products will account for 80% of the total product defects.
In a church context we generally observe that.
80% of the revenue comes from 20% of the parishioners.
80% of the social services are provided by 20% of the parishioners.
80% of the internal arguments come from 20% of the parishioners.
The practical effect of this rule is that there is no need to be a perfectionist. Just 20% of the effort will achieve 80% of the desired results. We can choose to live more like the Benedictines without having to follow every aspect of their rule.
So, as the Age of Limits closes in, how should individual Christians live, and what should the church’s strategy be in a world of so much uncertainty and anxiety? We know that the option of maintaining BAU (Business as Usual) is not an option. As resources dwindle, and as the climate becomes ever more erratic, we will be forced into a simpler lifestyle — like it or not. It is this knowledge that prompted Greer’s famous remark,
Collapse now and avoid the rush
In other words, prepare for a lower standard of living now. Such a decision does not necessarily mean that we have to suffer hardships. Indeed, many people who adopt a simple lifestyle say that they prefer it to our current, fast-paced way of living.
From the overall church, it will be necessary to work with governments, corporations and other secular bodies to create policies that align with our predictions as to what may take place in the coming years. For example, church leaders need to decide whether they prefer an incrementalist, “realistic” strategy, or whether they should follow a bold approach such as that outlined in the Green New Deal.
Or should the church adopt a different strategy — one of adaptation and resilience, as discussed in The Third Road? None of these decisions are easy.
Every week we release a section of the book A New City of God: Theology for an Age of Limits. This week it is the second part of Chapter 1 — For the Christian in an Hurry: The 300-Year Party. The document is a .pdf file that can be downloaded at no cost here. (The Table of Contents for the complete book is available here.)
While working on this blog and on my book A New City of God three events occurred at roughly the same time. They were:
Greta Thurnberg made her speech to the COP24 Conference in Poland. Her words went viral and they have encouraged young people around the world to take action.
The Methodist church in the United States is going through turmoil with regard to same-sex marriage and related issues.
I carried out a calculation to do with the membership of the Episcopalian church while writing A New City of God.
Pull these three threads together, and I am reminded of the image at the head of this post, which shows the neatly arranged deckchairs on the doomed Titanic on her fateful journey across the north Atlantic.
The story is familiar. The luxury steamship RMS Titanic sank in the early hours of April 15, 1912, off the coast of Newfoundland after striking an iceberg during her maiden voyage. The submerged portion of the iceberg scraped against the hull, tearing a gash along much of her length. Of the 2,240 passengers and crew on board, more than 1,500 perished in the icy North Atlantic.
The quotation, “Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic” has become a staple of our discourse. It implies futile, symbolic action in the face of catastrophe. Indeed, the sinking of the Titanic has generated many other aphorisms and oft-repeated quotations such as,
Until the moment she actually sinks, the Titanic is unsinkable. Julia Hughes
Seize the moment. Remember all those women on the ‘Titanic’ who waved off the dessert cart. Erma Bombeck
. . . the disaster suddenly ripped away the blindfolds and changed dozens of attitudes, practices, and standards almost literally overnight. Brander 1995
When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience in nearly forty years at sea, I merely say, uneventful. Of course, there have been winter gales, and storms and fog and the like. But in all my experience, I have never been in any accident . . . of any sort worth speaking about. I have seen but one vessel in distress in all my years at sea. I never saw a wreck and never have been wrecked nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort. E.J. Smith, Captain of the Titanic
The Brander quotation is important. The magnitude of the incident led to a total overhaul of the safety standards as sea (known as SOLAS). Those standards are with us today, and have saved countless lives.
I started this post by saying that three events had made an impression on me. Let’s take a quick look at each of these events.
The Thurnberg Speech
We have already discussed Greta Thurnberg’s clear, honest and courageous speech. It has encouraged thousands of young people to follow her leadership. To state the obvious, these young people (and many of their parents) are interested in staying alive. Consequently they are also highly critical of the actions of the hypocrisy of the generations that have preceded them. Maybe there is a message for the church there.
At the time of writing (February 2019) the Methodist Church in the United States was starting a conference at which LGBT and same-sex marriage issues were to be voted on. The result could be a breakup of the church. The USA Today says,
“What the United Methodist church will look like in March will likely be very different than it is today,” said the Rev. Ron Robinson, a chaplain and religion professor at Wofford College, which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. “This has the most significant potential for major division out of anything in my lifetime.”
Now gender issues are of high importance to many Christians — not only to Methodists, but also those in other denominations. The catch is that such discussions have, as an unstated assumption, that the present physical world will continue more or less in its current form. The passions are strong and deeply felt. But, if Age of Limits issues are going to create wrenching problems, then such discussions do have a flavor of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
While writing my book, I decided to research the status of the Episcopalian Church in the United States. Using 2017 data from the church’s web site I developed the following rather scary chart.
Membership in the church has declined steadily over a period of ten or more years. (Attendance at Sunday services is probably a more important figure than nominal membership. But it shows the same trends. Average parish attendance in the year 2011 was 65; by 2016 it was down to 58.)
While church membership is declining, the nation’s population is growing. The Episcopal church’s membership was 0.28% of the population of the United States in 2005, but had dropped to 0.19% in 2016. So, in the period 2005-2016 church membership fell from 827,000 to 601,000, a 27% drop. But the church’s percentage of the population fell from 0.28% to 0.19%, a 32% drop.
A simple linearization of the line, which has remarkably little scatter, shows that membership is declining by roughly 22,000 per annum. Given that current membership is at around 600,000 we can expect to hit the zero point somewhere around the year 2045. This is not what will actually happen, of course. The line will show an asymptote (hockey-stick effect) near its end; membership will level off at a low level, but it will not hit zero. Or the church may merge with another denomination struggling with a similar data set.
But, if the church is to have any meaning for the population at large, this trend must be reversed. I recognize that religious faith is not just a matter of numbers, but numbers do matter.
Related to the decline in attendance and membership is the fact that the church’s congregations are getting older — not only are more members needed, it is even more important to attract young people.
So we have the following situation:
Young people are growing increasingly passionate about climate change issues.
The church is spending its time and energy on issues that do not seem to be important to those young people.
Church membership and attendance is down. In particular, youth participation is dwindling.
And so the conclusion is . . .
Yet most church communities are not responding to climate change issues with the same level of passion as are young people. (After all, we don’t want to be controversial, do we?) This means that, from the point of view of these young people, church leaders are, by and large, simply rearranging the deck chairs on their sinking Titanic. So, unsurprisingly, they have little interest in joining the church. Who can blame them? No wonder that membership curve is declining so precipitously.
Moreover, even when the church does consider climate change, it tends to treat it as just one concern among many. Most churches have committees to organize activities such as food banks, spiritual retreats and mission trips. So the tendency is to treat climate change, and other Age of Limits issues, as being just one piece of the overall program. (“We will form a committee to take care of that.”) But climate change (and other Age of Limits issues) are existentially important — they are the Titanic. And, if the Titanic sinks, i.e., if the climate is drastically disrupted, then the other activities will sink with it.
If the church is to engage the trust and the confidence of young people growing up in a world that is changing frighteningly fast then Age of Limits issues need to become central to the mission. They are not just one activity among many — they are core to our beliefs and our actions.
Which means that a theology that fits this new world is needed.
This week we have released the first section of the book A New City of God: Theology for an Age of Limits. It is the Introduction to the book — what we refer to as ‘The Author’s Apology’. The document is a .pdf file that can be downloaded at no cost here. (The Table of Contents for the complete book is available here.)
Please let us have your feedback.
The Green New Deal
In February 2019 Democrats in the United States Congress submitted a Resolution entitled, ‘Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal’. One of the Resolution’s sponsors is the newly famous Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
This resolution is very unlikely to move forward as an actual bill. But it is clearly an opening shot in what promises to be an on-going debate within governments throughout the world.
So how should the church respond to this important initiative?
Well, probably the first thing that we should do is to sit down and actually read the document, rather than listening only to opinions about it (including mine). The Resolution is available at various web sites such as this one. It is just 14 pages long, and is perfectly readable.
Here are a few of the notes that I took as I read through the Resolution.
Refers to the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The Resolution is grounded in established science. It identifies human activity as being the dominant cause of climate change.
Identifies many of the serious impacts of global warming.
Calls for global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 60% by 2030 and zero emissions by 2050.
Discusses many issues not directly to do with global warming. These include declining life expectancy, economic inequality and repairing the nation’s infrastructure.
References the World War II New Deal.
The resolution has five elements. Only the first refers to global warming directly.
These pages discuss some of the proposed actions to be taken. They include the use of clean, renewable, zero-emission energy sources, and radical changes to farming and transportation.
The Resolution covers an extraordinary swath of issues. Yet it provides essentially no detail as to how these changes are to be made, how they are to be funded or how such massive projects can be implemented in such a short time frame.
Lack of Focus
One of the failures of many environmental movements is that they lack focus — they want to solve the problems of the world, rather than fixing one specific issue. This is a problem with this Resolution. Rather than focusing on just one issue — such as reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to say 350 ppm — it covers such a broad range of issues that it loses credibility.
The authors of the document probably added the material to do with extraneous issues such as health care and job security to get away from the “gloom and doom” image that climate change discussions often generate. And maybe they had to do this because they are working in a political environment. But, by promising so much, and by plunging into issues such as health care and income inequality that have their own controversies, they have taken their eye off the ball.
The concept of zero emissions does not make thermodynamic sense. This is a topic I discuss at some length in Chapter 5 of my book. Take a very simple example. The picture below shows an electrically-powered vehicle (EV). It has no tail-pipe, and so there are zero emissions. What’s not to like?
The catch is that the vehicle does have a tail-pipe — it is the stack of the power plant that generates the electricity that the vehicle needs.
A careful analysis of all aspects of EV technology — including the environmental impact to do with the manufacture and disposal of their batteries — suggests that they are not nearly as “green” as people think. They are certainly not ‘zero emissions’.
Energy Needed for Infrastructure
A radical transformation of the infrastructure, such as is proposed in this Resolution, would require the use of enormous amount of fossil-fuel energy (assuming that such large amounts of fossil fuels are actually available). The transition itself would contribute greatly to global warming.
The type of transformation that the authors of the Resolution propose, particularly in such a short time frame, is not realistic. To take one example, on page 9 the Resolution contains the words “high-speed rail”.
In the United States, the biggest high-speed rail project is the one being implemented in California. The project is, as they say, “troubled”. It has been more than twenty years in development, is way behind schedule, over budget by something like $50 billion, and is environmentally disruptive. And not one passenger has yet been taken from Point A to Point B. And that’s just one project that uses well-established technology.
The Resolution refers to the original New Deal, implemented at the start of the Second World War. In a remarkably short time span the United States was able to complete projects such as the building of thousands of Liberty ships, and completing the Manhattan nuclear weapon project. The catch is that, in those days, they did not face the resistance, regulations and the need for “studies” that applies now.
What’s Not There
The Resolution does not discuss some of the technical responses that many people feel are important. Examples are nuclear power and carbon-capture. (On page 9 there is a reference to low-tech carbon capture, i.e., trees. Once more, the technical reality of such a solution is not considered. There is not enough available land in the United States for the number of trees needed to capture industrial emissions. Moreover, that land is needed for the other low-density energy solutions such as solar panels and windmills.)
Maybe the biggest difficulty that I have with this Resolution is that there no acknowledgment that economic and social conditions are likely to deteriorate. Indeed, with its talk of “green jobs” it not only promises that Business as Usual can continue, but that life will get better. This is not hope, it is hopium.
We all recognize that this document is sponsored by professional politicians. And any politician who says, “Vote for me and I will make your life worse” will soon be an ex-politician. But Christians are required to tell the truth. Indeed, one of the themes of this site and of my book is that we are in a time when we really must tell the truth — no matter how difficult that may be. The time for hoping for the best, or for assuming that “they will think of something” is long behind us.
The Christian Response
I try to end each of these posts with some thoughts as to how the church can and should respond, and what lessons we can learn when it comes to developing a new theology. So how is the church to respond to this ambitious, yet technically flawed, document?
One response is to fully support the people who are driving this document forward. Here we have young, energetic people who are at least facing up to the dilemmas that face us. And they do hold a modicum of power. For that reason they deserve our full support. We recognize that their proposal is not realistic. But that’s not the point; this Resolution is a starting point, a stake in the ground. So let’s gather around and support it. The sponsors of this Resolution are to be congratulated on at least getting the ball into play. Moreover, the authors of the document are linking environmental programs with issues of social justice.
A second response is to say that that the Resolution is so far detached from the realities of thermodynamics, physics, ecology and even project management that we should not be associated with it, otherwise our credibility will be lost. At a time of crisis — the decline of the western Roman Empire — Augustine of Hippo was insistent that Christians tell the truth about what was going on. This was the only way, he maintained, that the church could establish auctoritas, the authority it needed to guide society through coming difficult times. This approach requires that proposals such as this must at least pass the red-face test.
Is there a middle ground? Could the church would work on two fronts? The first front would be to recognize that — materially speaking — the future looks grim. So we work with people at the local level to make our societies as resilient and adaptive as possible. This is the parish concept introduced in the home page of this blog.
The second front would consist of working with society leaders such as those who sponsored this Resolution on developing a message that lines up with the realities that we face. We show support for what they are doing, but we try to make sure that the message is credible. For example, we would take a honest look at the use of our available land. Do we want to use it from carbon-capturing trees, or for solar panels or for windmills? Pick one.
Doubtless this Resolution is the first of many that will be developed as politicians recognize that we are in for some wrenching changes. It is both an opportunity, and a challenge, for the church to help guide the development and implementation of such resolutions.
Throughout the course of 2018 it has seemed to me as if there has been a shift in public opinion to do with climate change. By and large, people seem to grasp that, at the very least, “Something is going on”.
Part of the editorial is addressed to corrupt public officials such as Scott Pruitt or Ryan Zinke. Leonhardt writes, “I often want to ask these officials: Deep down do you really believe that future generations of your own family will be immune from climate change’s damage?”
. . . every older person needs to be ready for the day when a younger person walks up to them and asks them two questions:
1. When did you know, and
2. What did you do about it?
When did you know about the many problems and predicaments facing our world today? When did you find out about species loss, and peak oil, the generationally destructive policies of your peers, and the unsustainability of our entire economic model?
And what did you do about any of it? Did you make any changes at all to your behavior, or did you close your eyes and slip into a strategy of false hope? Hope that ‘somebody’ would do ‘something’? Did you fight at all for the things in which you once believed?
These are tough questions. Martenson is going beyond public officials who had the power to make a change but chose not to do so. He is directing the questions at all of us. We all have the power to do something — however little it may seem. We all have some talent to contribute.
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.