Y Safle

In a recent sermon at our Church, Professor Sir John Houghton – former co chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) spoke on how he believed it was a Christian duty to be involved in protection of our environment.

Now this is something I have held to be true for a long time, but it makes for a better article if I can point out that a scientist and Christian of the distinction of Houghton is making this point, and not some faceless blogger. Or maybe it is just fun to name-drop.

But to judge by some conversations I have had in the past, you would think that some Christians believed virtually the opposite to be true, so here is why I think Christians should be concerned about the global warming issue:

Reason 1.

Way back in the 1970s a man called E.F. Schumacher wrote a book called “Small is Beautiful”. This book is wonderful in its breadth of insight. Schumacher points to the problems with foreign aid that does not address the roots of the problems that cause the aid to be necessary, although he argues very much for an increase in foreign aid that builds communities of appropriate sizes (thus the book’s title). His commitment to the poor is profound and exemplary.

But it is Schumacher’s clear sighted recognition of a major problem of our energy policy that is important here. Schumacher realises that oil is limited (not as limited as he thought perhaps, but still clearly limited). He argues that the world is merrily squandering this energy as though it would be available forever, whereas he points out that the oil economies will be short lived.

In economic terms we are spending capital as though it were revenue.

The purpose of capital expenditure should be the building of a sustainable infrastructure. Schumacher does not say we should not use oil, but that when we use it, we should do so to build a sustainable future.

This kind of prudent attitude fully accords with a Christian viewpoint, that would see the availability of oil as a gift of God given to us. In the parable of the talents, it is those who take the talents (whatever they are afforded) and use these wisely who are rewarded. To squander our oil reserves for no gain is poor stewardship fed by crass greed.

Reason 2.

In Romans 12:1-2, We are told that we should present our bodies (all of our lives) as a living sacrifice to God as an act of worship. We should not follow the ways ofthis world, but should live our lives as an act of homage to God.

Paul tells us to be a follower of himself as he is a follower of Christ. Christ (and the apostles) lived lives of beautiful simplicity. They did not accrue things to themselves. They did not value one another by what they had. Our spiritual act of worship should follow that of Christ.

The Christian life should be one of ascetisism. We need not all go live in monastries with vows of poverty – that is not what I mean. But a Christian life that sees consumption as a good thing, simply because it is possible, seems to me to be quite errant.

Reason 3.

People are going to die from climate change. Not so much those who cause global warming, but those who are powerless – the poor of this world. We don’t know exactly what will happen yet, but we know there will be desertification, flooding, worse storms and scuh like. Pacific islanders are already beginning to lose their homelands, and we could see many of these people becoming refugees. Extinctions will cause some economies to collapse (for instance in Northern Canada when the polar bears die out).

Global warming will kill people. Christians are quick enough to worry about issues such as abortion, where unseen people are killed by thoughtless actions. How is this different? If Christians are complicit in an agenda that sees more people being killed by the effects of global warming, then we are responsible for it too.

Sir John Houghton is right. The Christian duty is to protect and steward our environment – just as we were commanded by God to do.

You would think that if the world was going to end then people would want to spread the world. Moreso if in so doing they might actually avert the impending catastrophe.

Not so, it seems, American “liberals”.

Okay – that is unfair. I am probably (hopefully) only talking about a small fraction of American “liberals”. No doubt my stereotype is wrong. But here is what I’m talking about.

There is a blog posting titled You just don’t want to die of starvation because you’re jealous I have a Hummer and you don’t, where the writer wishes to rail against the thesis of one Jonah Goldberg that people would question global warming science if it turned out that global warming was entirely natural (a strange counterfactual in any case).

The writer puts words into the mouths of conservatives thus:

[they want to continue] the conservative theme that people who like nature are so abhorrent that it’s worth it to fry the planet just to [tee] us off

And then goes on with an ad hominem line that suggests we can ignore the ramblings of conservatives because they are the same people that gave us the pro life movement.

You can check out the feedback on the site above. I pointed out that it is illegitimate to conflate these issues, whatever one thinks of them. I was immediately attacked on my views on what it means to understand humanity of a foetus, and at the same time for bringing abortion into a thread ostensibly about global warming! Worse, as I tried to give reasoned arguments, I was attacked by a string of ad hominem arguments of the form “you are too stupid to understand”, “All your country men are mad” and such like.

Now call me stupid (clearly many have taken me up on that already), but my point was that when an issue is as important as global warming – where the whole world is being affected, and where society consensus is required to effect a lasting and workable change, it seems to make no sense to me to snap and bite at someone who agrees with you, simply because they disagree on some other issue.

What seems to be happening is that American “liberals” are adopting a package of beliefs that define their community. If one is a “liberal” in America, one must be pro-choice, believe global warming is a problem, and who knows what else.

You may not pick one belief and be admitted. It is all or nothing. Accept the package or be mauled by the self professed sentry dogs to the ivory tower of “liberalism”.

But this is just nuts. If we really care about global warming, and we really care about our environment then it makes absolutely no difference what our other beliefs are. We can work together to effect a change. Indeed, one way that more advanced countries in this field are making progress is to use the market to control emissions. Right wingers have something to add to the resolution of this issue, and whatever our political stripe, we must accept that help gladly.

After the lack of engagement in the thread above, and the appalling string of ad hominem arguments, I find myself as just the kind of person who would like to go out and buy a Hummer just to annoy the woolly thinking self styled “liberals”.

Fortunately for the world, I won’t do this. Partly because I feel to strongly on global warming, partly because I probably can’t afford to do so, and partly because I have no idea what a Hummer is!

But what do I make of these “liberals”? Well I think they are downright dangerous. If a pro lifer, (or any other right winger) were wavering on the global warming issue, these people would push them right back into the comforting arms of the Jonah Goldbergs of this world.

Worse, they have misappropriated the term “liberal” here. That is why I have been applying it in quotation marks to them. An essential tenet of liberalism is respect for the freedoms of each other, including freedoms of belief and speech. These people have no respect for such freedoms. They demonstrate just the type of small minded human behaviour that makes global warming such a threat to us. They perpetuate the idea that communities of which one is a member are better than those of which one is not. They believe conservatives are all stupid and mad, and afford the same judgement to anyone who does not accept their designated package of “liberal” beliefs.

This is ghetto thinking.

If we want to save the world we need to step out of the ghettos and start shouting about what really concerns us.

Would you get on an aeroplane if the pilot told you there was a 5% or a 1% probability that you wouldn’t reach your destination?
Chris Rapley

James Lovelock argues in his new book: “The Revenge of Gaia”, that the effects of global climate change will be severe and are all but inevitable. He paints a grim picture of water shortages, disruptions to the oceans and life therein, mass migrations and such like. This near apocalyptic vision has been criticised for being too severe, but in an interview for Radio 4, we hear Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, argue that Professor Lovelock’s choice was fully justified.

“The fact that you’ve been taking higher-end, pessimistic predictions of the IPCC is something that shouldn’t be dismissed,” he said, “even if there’s only a 5% or even a 1% probability that they might be real.

“Would you get on an aeroplane if the pilot told you there was a 5% or a 1% probability that you wouldn’t reach your destination? No of course you wouldn’t; you have to take even very low-probability scenarios very seriously.”

In America the one percent doctrine is being applied to terrorism, but ignored for climate change. Climate change is happening now, and we, the people, need to wake up to the threat and ignore the politicised flim flam before it is too late.

Scientists have noted that there has been a 20% drop in see temperatures brought by the North Atlantic Drift (the Gulf Stream) to European shores. The ocean current that keeps Europe’s climate so mild is being disrupted, almost certainly by meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet. Europe is heading for another mini ice age (not for the first time). Climate change is the problem, and it is real.

Don’t live in Europe? Well Eastern North America is also headed for violent climate change too. This is a problem that must be addressed. Climate change will happen. Wed can hope that Lovelock is wrong about the extent (although he is well within accepted ranges for the data). Even if he is wrong, we need to do something now.

Precautionary principle? Certainly in part. But blast the right wing American oil industry funded politicians who tell us that all will be well. Let them play Russian Roulette when they next board a plane. For the rest of us, precautions are exactly what we need to take.

More on the BBC interview regarding Lovelock’s book is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5150816.stm

Andrew Sullivan does a good job of exposing the hypocrisy of an administration that claims the 1 percent doctrine on one subject (WMDs) and rejects it on a far more important subject (Global Warming). He also correctly observes:

But Cheney also made an assumption Gore hasn’t: the American public will only sign up if they have no sacrifice to make, or if others do their sacrifices for them.

But whilst this is a perfectly good observation, we should note that it need not always be the case, and it certainly hasn’t always been the case. In particular, America’s finest hour was probably the Marshall plan. Now Chomsky is critical even of this plan, arguing that it was a transfer of money from the American public to the private sector (aided by capital flight from Europe), but even if we accept some of these criticisms, it is hard to deny that in this policy, America showed once and for all that it could use its economic power to act for the good of those beyond their borders. Yes, America would reap the rewards of regenerating shattered European economies, but this was pain now for later gain. This was proof that America could lead the world in the post war era.

But how the dreams crumble into ruin. Nowadays it seems that American policy is designed to keep rich Americans rich at the expense of the poor everywhere, and if the environment goes to pot – well that is someone elses problem.

Oh for a visionary in America now.

Truman had the Marshall Plan. Bush has Guantanamo bay.

I was having a conversation about our over use of fossil fuels, and particularly the problems of the motor car. I was met with the response that before long we will be growing our own vehicle fuels so we need not worry, to which I replied that deforestation associated with ethanol and methanol production would indeed be a problem.

The reply?

There is no deforestation from yeast.

One wonders what kind of science education could have led to this failure to appreciate the application of the principle of conservation of energy, or the process of respiration, fermentatikon and such like.

Neither ethanol nor methanol is produced from yeast alone.
Ethanol is produced from cellulose based grains and wood.
Methanol (or “wood alcohol”) is usually produced from
biomass, although it can also be produced from natural gas,
other petrochemicals, and even methane.
Recycling of methane for use in the production of
methanol is one area of current research, but will not produce
sufficient quantities to replace our use of fossil fuels.

Consider that brewing with yeast does not use yeast alone.
When brewing alcoholic beverages you need yeast, sugar
and some biological (carbon based) agent, such as grapes,
hops, ginger, grain, rice etc.

You may not notice the loss of the biological agent when
producing the small quantities of alcohol you consume in a
beverage, but on a commercial scale, when producing
fules, the losses are huge.

Alcohol based fuels are feasible as long as you are not
burning more fuel than you can replace by replantation. This,
unfortunately, is not the case.

It does give us some cause to hope though. We can now
see that we don’t have to live without fuels (and thus transport)
altogether. It is simply the level of usage that must be
radically reduced.

Having explained this, the reply given was:

Again, Brazil has been doing this quite sucessfully for many years

Succesful in what sense? despite the ideal conditions for ethanol
production, government subsidy is still required to make ethanol
production cost effective.
Because ethanol has a calorific value about half that of petrol
(diesel has, I think, 10% higher calorific value than petrol), it is
necessary to mix the ethanol with petrol in order to avoid the need
for huge fuel tanks. Currently I understand that Brazilian fuel is
between 22% and 24% ethanol.

Various vehicles do run on pure ethanol, but these are generally
vehicles such as city taxis, where the shorter range is less of a
problem.

In any case, ethanol in Brazil is produced from sugar cane. I believe
that Eucalyptus is often used as biomass.

In Brazil the sugar cane region is known as the Zona da Mata – a huge
swathe of land that has all but replaced the Mata Atlantica tropical
forest. To grow sufficient sugar to run all those vehicles, the forest
has been destroyed.

To give some idea of the amount of sugar cane alone that is required
to produce ethanol, consider these figures:

It is estimated that the net energy yield of ethanol produced from
sugar is 30GJ/ha each year. Diesel fuel has a calorific value of about
35 KJ/L at 15 degrees celsius, so assuming this is 10% more than
petrol, we find that the *net* yield of energy is equivalent to
approximately 1000 litres of petrol equivalent per hectare per year.

Now I know that the avearge petrol station distributes about 2 million
litres of fuel per year (see:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/documents/rs16-01.htm ), so we require
about 2,000 hectares of land (capable of growing sugar) for each
petrol station. (I am not sure what total UK usage of petrol/diesel
is, but would be interested in using those figures in this context, if
anyone has them).

At current levels of usage (which are growing all the time), we don’t
have a hope of servicing our needs through ethanol production.

Brazil manages it because they have a climate in which they can grow
sugar cane, and huge tracts of forest that they can cut down to place
the sugar plantations. Even so, they still rely heavily on
petrochemicals to balance their fuel budget.

In theory alcohols are sustainable fuels, but in practice we do not
have the land area to grow sufficient quantities for our needs.

Indeed it gets worse. It may be that the energy inputs in growing ethanol are as much as or higher than the energy output. The net gain in energy may well be negative. This figure is disputed, but certainly the net gain in energy is much lower than the gross gain, so we need yet more land to grow our fuel.

The problem here is over-use. We should not avoid renewable fuels – they are part of our future, but conservation of resources and the breaking of our car dependent culture is equally important.

We read in Rawstory News that American president George Bush has announced that he never denied that global warming is a serious problem. Here’s his semi literate rambling:

QUESTION: I know you are not planning to see Al Gore’s new movie, but do you agree with the premise that global warming is a real and significant threat to the planet –

BUSH: I think it’s — I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There’s a debate over where it’s man-made or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing that — the technologies necessary to — to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: one, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons and for national security reasons.

That’s why we’re pressing for clean coal technology. That’s why the hydrogen initiative is — is robust. In other words, we want our children being able to drive cars not fueled by gasoline but by hydrogen. That’s why I’ve been a strong advocate of ethanol as an alternative source of — of fuel to run our cars.

I strongly believe that we ought to be developing, you know, safe nuclear power. The truth of the matter is, if this country was — it wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we got to have nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable.

And so I believe in — and I’ve got a plan to be able to deal with greenhouse gases.

So Bush is selling new nuclear build with a slightly more conciliatory tone than in the past. He now says that he always thought Global Warming a threat (just not one worth doing anything to prevent!) He is still wrong to say there is a debate about causes of global warming – especially his fals dichotomy of “man made or naturally caused”.

Global warming is both man made and naturally caused. It is the man made that is the problem though, as we overwhelm carbon sinks, and squander our fuel capital for no gain in sustainability. Bush stated that we need energy policy that fosters consumption, and now he dares pretend concern about global warming merely so that he can sell nuclear power as energy supplies no longer meet demand and the price of oil rockets.

Martin Luther King said:

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Some American Christian leader called Ted Haggard says that 100 years from now Muslims will see George Bush as a great liberator. My opinion is that 100 years from now we will see George Bush as the worst disaster to hit the waning American empire. Let us hope that there is still a civilised and stable society able to make any such judgements at all.