This article discusses how different religious groups have taken a stand for the environment because of their view of God as the Creator. I find it interesting that an AP writer is actually giving credence to the side of the issue that concerns me.

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.

I recently presented a paper with this title at the Southwest Regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The paper was well-received, though I would have wished for more input (don't we all!).

The basic argument of the paper proceeds like this:
1. Worship in the Bible is defined as fulfilling God's commands.
2. One of God's commands is to care for his creation.
3. Creation Care is an act of Worship.
4. Qualifications for what makes an act of service (e.g. creation care) an act of worship.
5. Recycling is an act of Creation Care.
6. Recycling is an act of Worship, and conclusions...

You can read the paper at: http://www.clickcaster.com/conservativeecology

Oslo Norway is planning to make use of one human by-product to fuel their city buses. The idea is to harvest the methane released from human excrement at sewage treatment plants, and then use it to power the buses.

If this is cost effective, then every city in the world should be doing it!!!! If there's one thing people have and endless supply of, it's that stuff. Talk about your alternative fuels!!

Check out the whole story here.

Well, President Obama acted to get the EPA to approve California (and other states) more strict emissions standards for automobiles. His new mileage mandate would require automobiles sold in the US to achieve 35mpg (per 2008 test) by 2020. His mandate includes a 4% increase per year to achieve this (more on these actions here).

In response to Obama's proposed stimulus/bailout (depending on which news channel you watch), the Canadian group "PowerUP Canada" is pushing for a similar deal in Canada. The proposal would nearly match the Obama proposal in funds for green goals, and would have the same purpose. Most of the money would go towards retrofitting buildings so that they are more energy efficient (more from the story here).

Personally, I am glad to hear that North America will be cutting down on pollution and wasting less energy. Though I am an independant (for politcal purposes) I really like what the democrats have proposed so far for this "green" agenda. I can only hope that there will be some sort of major rail (both passenger and freight) included in this stimulus/bailout.

So far so good, from Pres. Obama.

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.

I read a book called The Maker's Diet (book) about a year ago and never really changed any habbits. But after gaining 45lbs last year - I decided to take the plunge. 8 days in, I'm down 12lbs and feeling great!! Eating Healthy organic foods, has really made a difference in the way I feel. I'm sure cutting out sugar has helped too!

The Makers Diet (website) isn't for the faint of heart. It basically goes against the way 99% of Americans eat. Portion control, being very selective about meats (more fish and chicken less beef and pork), all organic foods, and an intense phase one with no carbs will probably scare away most people.

BTW Organic farming is usually tauted as a way to save the environment since it doesn't pollute land - that's why I mention this diet here.

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 was in Lowes the other day, and something caught my eye. They had firelogs on display right by the register and they said, "all natural" and "burns cleaner than wood". I thought this was a pretty goofy claim at the time, and even made a sarcastic comment to my wife about it...

But I checked it out on the web, and according to their numbers (see here), the label is correct!! I think I understand what they mean now. They are not claiming that these logs produce pollutant free fire, or less CO2. They are claiming that they use all natural wax instead of petroleum-based wax; and that since these firelogs burn longer than wood, it emits less pollutants than a wood fire over the same amount of time.

Who would have thought it would be possible to "go green" with your fire? It surprised me!!

A few recent events have led me to believe that Christians who view ecology as something important (in other words they are "green"), need to have thought through some ethical questions. How does one relate to those with whom they disagree? How far is one willing to go in pursuing "greener" goals?

One should honor and respect those who are not "green" because they are the image bearers of God, even if they disagree with you. Unfortunately, some people take their environmental agenda so far, that they are wiling to harm other humans who get in the way of their goals (see story here). This type of behavior must be condemned by Christians, even those who are "green". This is because of the Christian ideal of "treating others as you want to be treated" which is a proverb based upon biblical truth.

Still, the environmentalists (except for the deep ecology people) have as their goal the preservation of the planet for humans. So, how does hurting humans to save the planet fit in? It simply does not work. Their logic deconstructs.

A town in Spain has erected solar panels over a graveyard in order to pursue a greener supply of energy (see article here). Does this cross some sort of a line in respecting human dignity? Some would argue that this does cross a line. While I am not yet ready to take a position on this (I haven't thought it through enough) I do believe that Christians should respect human dignity. For me, this means that we should not engage in abortion or the euthanizing of the mentally challenged for population control. Of course, protestants have generally thought of birth control as acceptable (although one Southern Baptist recently went against this, here).

So there are several issues for the Christian to think through regarding the issue of how far one should go to pursue a green agenda. However, one can and should always treat other people in teh way that Christ did, with respect and honor -even those we disagree with.

MSNBC tends to run poorly cited articles about the environment. I think this is exactly why some groups discount the environmental emphasis or "green movement". In a recent article on water shortages (read it here), the story comes with no evidence to back up its claims. The story mentions one scientist whom the story says "Wong said the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that as many as 2 billion people won't have sufficient access to clean water by 2050." The problem with that statement is that the story gives no context to it. There is no mention of when and where Dr. Wong said this, or what study his statement was based upon. In short, there is no way for the reader to judge the validity of his claim.

Basically this type of writing is little more than propaganda. That is precisely why some groups doubt that climate change is happening. Environmental groups cry out that oil companies are distributing "misinformation" in an attempt to stifle environmental groups and increase their profits. This may be the case - but as long as environmental articles are written like the one mentioned at MSNBC, no reader will be able to make an informed judgment. We need facts, we need evidence, we need citations or at least the mention of where the information came from.

I found a story on MSNBC about the environmental dangers that Pot growing is causing in the USA (story here). Whether you think smoking pot is wrong or not (Illegal = wrong for me, plus it can't be good for you), it has some very bad environmental impacts.

I saw a documentary a while back on the history channel which portrayed the fight against pot growers in Tennessee by the parks and wildlife association. They were having to watch out for traps, and all sorts of things set to kill them -all set by those who were growing illegal crops of marijuana on gov't land. The msnbc article details how these pot growers are using harmful chemicals to increase their crop yield. Most of those chemicals were outlawed in the US back in the 70's, because of how harmful they are to wildlife. Additionally, the introduction of foriegn crops, the creation of new trails, and the presence of humans, would seem to negatively impact the environment of those areas.

National Parks are really going to take a hit from this if something doesn't change. Eventually the illegal poaching, and the pollution will impact the health of these ecosystems -if it hasn't already.

Christians are called to follow the laws of their land unless those laws prohibit the worship of God. Since smoking and growing marijuana are illegal, the Christian would do well to stay away from these things. Since the marijuana trade impacts God's creation so negatively, supporting it would also be supporting the misuse of God's creation.

For those of you who do enjoy marijuana, you might think about the possibilities of the chemicals used to grow the drug being more harmful than the drug itself...

Time.com (Time Magazine) ran an article with this title, which supports what I claimed about the "green" agenda losing its footing to the "economic agenda" (the picture is from the Time article). Could going green actually save the economy? The article also contained an interesting idea:

"So what should greens do to avoid irrelevance, now that Hank Paulson is replacing Al Gore as the nation's chief scold? First, tie environmental rescue to economic recovery, by "greening the bailout," as columnist Tom Friedman of the New York Times has put it. As the new Administration — whether Democratic or Republican — searches for ways to stimulate the economy, green infrastructure spending could be the way to go. More money for high-speed rail, tax credits for new solar systems, increased federal funding for renewable energy — these are policies that might not only help stimulate a flagging economy, but directly contribute to slowing the growth in America's carbon emissions. (Not to mention promoting green jobs at a time when unemployment is on the rise.) The challenge will be tactical: convincing Americans that curbing climate change is as much about overhauling a failed economy as it is about limiting carbon emissions. That message didn't get across during the debates over Lieberman-Warner; the next President and Congress will need to do better. "Addressing greenhouse gases and addressing the economy are all part of the same problem," says Barbour. "This is absolutely a top priority. It can't be postponed forever."" (from the article here)

Since there were huge government programs to get the country out of the Great Depression, maybe government programs could get the country out of the current economic funk. Imagine if we had tons of jobs and government money poured into creating a good rail network which could replace 18 wheelers (heck train those guys to run the new trains as a part of the program). We could reduce traffic, reduce emissions, and create jobs. Will it happen - not if either of the corporate candidates are elected (and one will be).

California has signed legislation into law which will attempt to limit "sprawl" (click here for story). I admire the attempt to build communities near centers of work. However, some very obvious problems seem to stick out to me.

(The picture is from La Citta Vita)

1) Would people really want to live near factories, or other plants which pollute (air or noise or whatever)?

2) Usually, neighborhoods close to industry/business exist, but are undesirable. Does this law mean that these neighborhoods will be reclaimed (re-urbanized, or re-vitalized) so that property values rise exponentially driving the current inhabitants away? This seems to be the usual pattern in cities of "sprawl". Then they tend to bulldoze the existing structures to build larger houses. I'm not sure that this process would help the environment.

3) Will this law guarantee that the people who work at these places can afford to live in the planned community nearby? I would love to live in downtown Fort Worth, where I could walk to any store I would like. But, the price is triple (or more) what I currently pay in the suburbs for half the space (and no garage!). If only the elite can afford to do this, the environment will not really be helped by this process. In addition, the very people who currently live in that regional environment will become the subject of an unfair type of oppression by the elite.

Until these questions can be answered I don't think the California legislation will be effective, no matter how hard the "Terminator" threatens.

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).

I found out (here) that there is a movement to create "green" jobs here in the 'ol US of A. The only problem for me is that I don't really understand what that means. I found out that there is even a designation of "green collar worker". The wiki article on it says:

A green-collar worker is a worker who is employed in the environmental sectors of the economy, or in the agricultural sector. Environmental green-collar workers satisfy the demand for green development. Generally, they implement environmentally conscious design, policy, and technology to improve conservation and sustainability. Formal environmental regulations as well as informal social expectations are pushing many firms to seek professionals with expertise with environmental, energy efficiency, and clean renewable energy issues. They often seek to make their output more sustainable, and thus more favorable to public opinion, governmental regulation, and the Earth's ecology.

Green collar workers include professionals such as conservation movement workers, environmental consultants, environmental or biological systems engineers, green building architects, holistic passive solar building designers, solar energy and wind energy engineers, nuclear engineers ^[1], green vehicle engineers, organic farmers, environmental lawyers, ecology educators, and ecotechnology workers. They also include vocational or trade-level employment: electricians who install solar panels, plumbers who install solar water heaters, and construction workers who build energy-efficient green buildings, wind power farms, or other clean, renewable, sustainable future energy development workers could all be considered green jobs.

What I'm wondering is where will these jobs fit into the present "growth" economy? I'm not sure that they really will. As long as it is cheaper to ship jobs overseas and then ship the produce back here to sell it, these green jobs will have trouble taking hold. The american public, and goverment, is largely thinking in terms of bottom line (dollars). I think of it as a combination of Scottish Pragmatism (which has been influential in America) and Capitalism run amuck. Whatever is cheapest "works" and therefore is "best". Wal-Mart runs on this philosophy. But, is it always an ethical way of doing things? NO.One must also consider the means of the production, as well as the long term effects of it.

Maybe the American public needs these "green jobs" to create more employment. However, as long as big businesses fund and run politics, the bottom line mentality will dominate. I think we're a long way from incorporating green jobs into an economy unless big business can find a way of making more money from them.

I recently read In the Beginning God: Modern Science and the Christian Doctrine of Creation by John Weaver. The title pretty much explains the thrust of the book. He presents a sort of synthesis of scientific ideas of origins and the Christian idea of origins. When speaking of the Christian tradition, he says,
“The relation between creator and creation is characterized by both distance (allowing freedom) and closeness (God’s attentiveness). There is a ‘letting be’ rather than a ‘must be’” (32). And then, “The fact that the first page of the Bible speaks of heaven, earth, sun, moon, stars, plants, trees, birds, fish, and land animals is a sign that God is concerned with these as well as humans” (33).

Then Weaver discusses humanity’s responsibility in dealing with the earth as God’s creation:
“For human beings to ‘have dominion’ over nature is a challenge to human beings to act with God, imitating his loving kindness and faithfulness with the whole of creation” (124). And then he asks, “To whom does the earth belong? ‘The earth is the LORD’s’, and God has given it to us. But it is a leasehold – to rule on God’s behalf. Our unique relation with God leads to our ability to think, choose, create, love, pray, and exercise control. Research, discovery, and invention in biology, chemistry, physics, and other spheres, and in all the triumphs of technology, are part of our God-given role. We co-operate with the processes of nature, we do not create them. God has entrusted us – we are caretakers, not landowners. The Year of Jubilee teaches us that we do not hold the freehold rights. Goods are meant for everyone; they are to be shared” (125).

This view of humanity’s role comes with certain ethical implications:
“Justice means that Christians should work to get people out of poverty. Meeting their needs once is not justice. IN addition, land should not be owned by corporations, but should belong to the people” (126). Then he remarks, “As we noted earlier, Gustavo Guitierrez challenges the church to recover the biblical call to give all people the dignity which is achieved through the climination of exploitation and poverty, which prevent the poor from being fully human. Jesus said, ‘I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full’” (127).

For Weaver, the idea of God as creator gives rise to a Christian pursuit of righteousness in terms of land-resources and poverty. He says:
“The uneven distribution, control, and use of natural resources are serious justice issues; and the rapid depletion of non-renewable natural resources raises the questions of our responsibility to future generations. Poverty is a source of ecological destruction, but ‘unless the poor have alternative sources of food and basic needs like fuel, they too will wantonly destroy whatever natural environment is around them’” (129).

One other interesting point that Weaver makes has to do with the apparent discrepancy with viewing God as the creator of a good creation, and the reality of natural disasters that harm human beings. He says:
It is not fair to blame God for destructive disasters, and question his goodness, when we have the ability to change the circumstances. It is also a moral question for humanity. “We come face to face with God who, in his self-limiting love gives freedom of choice to his creation, and who himself lives with the consequences of such an action.” 118
Rather than question God, Weaver prefers that we question our own human judgment in allowing people to be put into harms way in the first place. After all, these natural disasters may be surprising, but their possibility is widely known.

So, Weaver’s book offers some interesting insight into the idea of God as Creator, that is so foundational in Christianity. He understands humanity as the caretakers of God’s good creation. Because of this fact, humanity has the responsibility of preserving justice in the land, and with its resources. Yet, he goes farther than some evangelicals (in the American sense) may be willing to go. One of his concluding statements is based on Romans 8:19-22, in which he says, “God created the earth, entrusted it to human beings, and will redeem the whole of creation. Part of redemption lies in human repentance of extravagance, pollution, and wanton destruction of the environment” (142).

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?