Obama's science advisor has stated publicly that he thinks the idea of geo-engineering is the way to hold off global warming (here). I find this idea interesting. I love technology. I love God's creation. But, I am unconvinced about global warming. I've yet to see any good data supporting real warming over any extended amount of time that doesn't mimic natural patterns in the past. If you are aware of this data please leave a link in the comment section!!

The basic idea that Obama's science advisor suggests is that we should use technology to stave off the radical global warming that "could be approaching" (his words in the article). Holdren's idea includes creating a device which would launch particles into the upper atmosphere much like a volcano. To be fair, it is widely accepted that a volcanic eruption was in large part the cause of the "Little Ice Age" (data here). However Holdren himself notes that the effects of such a device are unknown.

Anyone who has read even a little bit about Chaos theory (a good book here, and article here) knows that a complex system with many variables is basically impossible to predict. This is because the same patterns can be caused by different sets of variables. So, scientists really don't know what the effect of this device might be, but Holgren is ready to say that he thinks it is the best bet in the fight against what might be catastrophic global warming.

I would rather see our nation (and Christians in particular) embrace a lifestyle that uses the fewest resources possible, causing the least pollution possible, and only leaving a mark upon human culture, not a scar in the land.

Tonight, I'll be teaching at our lifegroup. Hopefully I'll be a discussion leader more than anything. I hope the insights I offer will be of use to everyone in the group. I'll probably try to post my outline and possibly a recording of the session (podcast). Pray for me as I prepare, and bring the word.

Lisa Jackson, the nominee to head the EPA under the new administration in the USA, seems firm in her commitments to the mission of the EPA. In fact, from reading this story, she seems to be as committed as Ralph Nader would be.

It really seems that she will seek to curb emissions, and to change the course of the USA with regard to pollution and environmental safety. However, one of her statements she talked about Science having the most influence. While this will help her achieve her goals, it also signals that she works from a humanist standpoint.

Naturally I work from a different starting point. I feel that if one starts with the idea that humans determine right and wrong, then it is possible to make improper judgments about right and wrong. In fact, a utilitarian idea which neglects the future of the human species would argue for ignoring environmental issues altogether and seek to achieve the greatest happiness at present.

I would rather start where the Bible (God's revelation) starts. God created the earth, and therefore it has value. God uses the earth to bless humanity and therefore it has value. While my ideas may work out in a way that affirms similar policy to what Mrs. Jackson affirms, I begin at a totally different starting point.

The USA always takes a beating from foreign press on our policy toward the environment. Recently activists blasted the U.S. at climate talks in Poland. Now, Obama gets praise from the foreign media and has pledged to make the USA a global leader on the environment.

But what will happen when he breaks this promise?

Yes, I think he will. First of all, if you read the above story, the criticism is because the Bush administration does not want to pledge enough aid, or set strict enough emissions goals. Neither will Obama!! Why? The economy is in the toiled. Every high school kid learns in their government class (which is mandated by the government ironically) that economics drives policy. It makes sense, we are a capitalist country - we look for the bottom line.

"Greens" tend to argue that the earth/climate is the bottom line in reality. But, like always, the environment will be put off as "the next generation's problem" - after all people need jobs, we're in a recession!!

My question for all of you Christians out there is this: Should we make decisions based on our ethics (preferably that of Jesus) or on the bottom line?

People can argue all day about how much money to spend on the environment. At the end of the day, what difference are you making? How have you adapted your behavior to care for God's green earth?

I have started recycling like crazy. We take all kinds of stuff to the recycling bins now instead of to the curb for the trash pick-up. We try to buy only replacements for broken items. I never throw things away, instead I sell them on ebay (yes, I'm a stock-holder) or give things away. The really hard thing that I'm struggling to do now is to put together a list of companies that not only treat the environment properly, but treat people properly -and then do business with those companies...

Credit for the picture goes to chuck perry's blog

I tend to harp on the phrase "caring about God means caring about his creation" around here. I thought I would tease that out in terms of technology. For example, the new Apple laptops have arrived and Apple claims that they are the "greenest laptops ever" (video and article here). Yet some tech bloggers disagree, maintaining that the new Macbooks are just about as wasteful as any other new laptop (see article here). They claim this on the basis of the waste created in production.

I'm sure that the production waste is a good way to evaluate part of the way a laptop could be considered "green". But, I think the real questions should be: How long will it last? How much less power does it use than other laptops?

These two questions could give much more insight into how "green" a product is. If a laptop produces waste in production, but lasts for 6years on average, then it is considerably less wasteful than most. At the same time, if a laptop uses 50% of the power of other comparable machines, then it will produce much less waste over its lifetime (especially for someone who uses one as much as I do).

So I think that there should be some sort of standard for measuring the energy efficiency of these laptops, and factoring that into a "green" standard of evaluation. Perhaps this could even become a part of the energy star sticker. I'll have to recommend that one to my boy Ralph Nader.

As the price of oil has dropped below $80 per barrel, some are thinking that the need for alternative fuel powered vehicles is not that great of a need. MSNBC ran a story here. The image is by Justin Sullivan from Getty Images.

It is true that oil has dropped to a lower price than anyone would have imagined this summer. In fact, one oil company that I know of is adjusting their budget and forecasts very much downward because of this - as I am sure many other companies are. This creates two problems from the economic standpoint. The companies will be creating less jobs for the exploration and recovery of fossil fuels, which will hurt the economy, and drive up the price of oil eventually.

The same person who told me about his company's budget adjustment has said that oil will go back up. Why is he so confident? Oil is a limited resource, and as it becomes harder to find or OPEC cuts back production, the price will go up. $200 per barrel of oil is just a matter of time. It could be 2 years, or it could be 40 years.

This brings me back to the issue at hand, why would we stop investing in research for alternative fuels when we know that those technologies will be vital and even necessary in the near future? Greed. The bottom line mentality does not take into account what is best for the future, but only what will make corporations the most money now, or allow consumers to purchase goods the cheapest now. The shortsightedness of capitalism may very well be what got us into the current credit crisis, and it may very well be what gets us into the next crisis - the crisis of fossil fuel free technology.

As Christians we must learn to look at more than just the short term profit/loss sheet. We must learn to look at a decision in terms of its moral weight. Since God values his creation, we should value it too. That may mean that we make a sacrifice now for the future, instead of looking for the cheapest goods at the present time.

As I drove into the Metroplex today and noticed again how polluted the air was, I wondered where the city ranked in terms of air pollution. Sadly (or thankfully- depending on your view) DFW ranks 7th in terms of Ozone pollution, and doesn't even make the top 10 list in the other EPA categories (stats here). I'm actually suprised by this because I often think to myself how nasty our air looks. After all, I run outside in this stuff 4-5 times per week.

Today I thought I'd look and see what the Old Testament has to say about air. Using my fancy Bible software (Bibleworks 7 -which isn't cheap), I did some searches, and some reading. The word "air" actually doesn't occur many times and represents only one way to translate the Hebrew word "ruach". Most frequently this word refers to "wind" but can also mean "spirit". In the contexts where it refers to air, there isn't anything relevant to our topic. In the contexts where it is translated "wind", it is used as an entity by which God brings both blessing (salvation) and judgment (see Gen 41:23,27; Ex 10:13, 19; Ex 15:10). Another hebrew word which is close to the word "ruach" is "shamayim" which is translated as sky or heaven. In the instances where it is translated as "sky" I was interested to find that it refers mainly to judgment -both in the present or in the future, as in "the day of the Lord". Check Gen 6:7; 7:11; Ex 9:10; Dt 28:26; 1 Sam 17:46; etc.

So one could conclude from looking at the Old Testament's understanding of the air (or sky, or wind) that God uses it as an instrument of judgment or blessing depending on the actions of his people. Let me pose a question. Could our air pollution (though we drive the cars, and work the factories that pollute) be something that God allows so as to enact his judgment? This actually fits well within Walter Brueggemann's idea of the earth being the mediator of God's blessing or judgment which he pesented in his book "The Land".

The next time I look at the air, my understanding of why it looks like it does will be different. Instead of just feeling like we need to enact some pollution standards to control it, I will approach the issue more holistically. I think we should actually pray that we (as humans) would repent of our wrong acts toward God, each other, and God's earth. I think I will begin to pray that God will relent from punishing us with the poor air (whether it is a result of humanity's injustice or humanity's choices in dealing with the environment though i argue elsewhere these issues are intertwined).

Today as I was walking from my car to the library at SWBTS, I realized that this morning was probably a lot like the mornings in the garden of creation.

The cool of the morning glides against my face, and gives me energy in my lungs. The sun glows behind the clouds. It's warm tones filter through the oak trees. The light shimmers on the dewy grass. The air smells clean. The air smells like trees, and flowers. The birds sing and call to one another. Everything seems to be coming awake as I drink my coffee.

I can almost imagine the story of Genesis 2 taking place in a setting much like this. The story portrays God as a gardener among his people.

How are we treating the garden? How are we treating the gardener?

I read an interesting post over at the NCC Blog. It was about Gustav evacuees, and it called them "climate refugees". I found this term intriguing. The wikipedia definition (while certainly not definite) describes a climate refugee as, "a displaced person caused by climate change induced environmental disasters. Such disasters are evidence of human-influenced ecological change and disruption to Earth's climate system, primarily through the emissions of green house gases."

So, properly speaking. I'm not sure Gustav evacuees qualify as climate refugees. There were hurricanes long before we had human induced climate change.

Ethically, what should we do about these people. Should we attempt to rebuild their homes? I'm not sure. Recently I've been thinking that it may be best (financially) for the government to spend money for the displaced people to start a life in a new place which isn't going to have the same potential for natural disasters.

Christians should seek to meet these people's needs in one way or another. I'm just not sure what the most responsible way of doing that is. Sending people back into harm's way may not be the best way of doing that. Of course those people have a right to live there, but in a sense they are taking responsibility for their own problems by going back instead of moving to a safer place.

I have a feeling this question is going to be on my mind in the weeks to come as Hurricane Ike broods in the Gulf of Mexico. We still have Katrina victims living among us in DFW years after that storm. Perhaps that was the best solution...perhaps not...

I've been doing a little reading over at cleanmpg.com before bed lately. I noticed a little TerraPass graphic in some guys signatures, so I finally checked it out. The website is pretty cool, and looks great. The picture is one of their badges...

They have a store where you can buy energy saving devices, or even carbon credits. In addition, they have a pretty detailed carbon footprint calculator. I was a little disappointed in my results with it, because my energy provider uses all fossil fuel (it's a co-op so I can't opt out). This is especially disappointing when there is wind energy available close by at 4 cents per kwh cheaper than what we pay.

The site also details the company's projects (clean energy, farm power, and landfill gas capture).

For us Christians who wish to reduce our detrimental impact upon God's creation, this website will be somewhat helpful. It can suggest a few ways that you can lessen your carbon footprint as well as support a good cause. The only reason I'm not too excited about it is that I haven't seen any data supporting the validity of carbon offsets. Does anyone have any?

Recently, the EPA denied the Texas Governor's request for a waiver on E10 RFG. (Read the story here). I'm all for changes to help the environment, but I DO NOT THINK E10 RFG actually helps things. I want to put aside the argument of rising corn prices as a result of adding corn based ethanol. That argument is not of concern to me. I want to submit the idea that E10 RFG is less efficient than regular gasoline, even other re-formulated gasoline variants. I have been keeping detailed mileage logs on my car, based on fuel type. Many other hypermilers do as well (click here to read). I have found that E10 RFG gets about 12% less miles per gallon than other gasoline I've used lately ((7.8 RVP, MTBE-No Increase) -which you can find in most Texas counties (like McClennan County -Waco). The interesting thing is that if you consider the change of burning 10% less fossil fuel, you should see a 10% drop in economy (at worst). BUT, in the real world, it turns out to be a 12% drop in economy. If a driver drives 15,000 miles per year (in a car with fuel efficiency similar to my 2001 Accord), that turns into a difference of nearly 50 more gallons of gasoline being needed. In a car like my Ford Explorer, the difference goes to 100 gallons. I think you can see the implications. If E10 RFG requires more fossil fuels to be burned, then it actually results in MORE POLLUTION!!

The phrase “evangelical ecology” may sound like a paradox, as does “conservative Christian ecology”. But, I believe that it is a possibility. Evangelicals have long been criticized rightly or wrongly for believing that the earth is going to be destroyed, so why worry about taking care of it.

Recently, the liberal agenda has taken up the cause of ecology and made it one of their foremost concerns. This has carried over into liberal theology as well. Terrence Fretheim released a book titled God and World: A Relational Theology of Creation, which fits well in this category of liberal theology. It considers creation to be the central theme of the bible and therefore ecology becomes one of the foremost concerns.

But, his understanding of creation texts in the Bible leaves something to be desired. Not only does he interpret clear metaphors in a literal fashion, but he also bends the meaning of some of the Hebrew terms. It seems that this is done so that he will have a proof-text for his presupposition of the importance of ecology. It results in making the world a living organism that is in relationship to God, much like humanity. Therefore, God would be somehow less god-like without creation, creation contributes to who he is.

I mention all of this because a truly evangelical ecology, or a conservative Christian ecology has vastly different foundations. First of all, it is founded on the belief that the environment would not be a concern if God had not made it. An evangelical theology believes that God created the world with humanity in mind. We are his image bearers and charged with ruling creation. This ruling should look like His king of ruling –a loving rule. In fact the idea is expanded in the second chapter of Genesis by describing humanity as supposed to till and keep the garden. For these reasons, ecology becomes important. Not because the earth is in relationship to God, for indeed evangelicals think otherwise.

Ecology takes a different shape too for a conservative Christian. It is not a primary concern, though it is a concern. Ecology falls under the realm of creation theology, which takes a backseat to other larger things. Evangelism and Ministry carry more weight than ecology, but it does remain important. This results in an ecology that appears more mild and balanced from the outside than liberal ecology does. But it does have the same goals in mind.