Should Christians Be Concerned about Climate Change?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Stewardship — the Bible's foundation

• The question posed (in the host's frame): this past december, there was a series of tornadoes, that swept across the mid-south region, of the united states. And they killed dozens of people. Millions of dollars, in property, were destroyed. And almost immediately, we had politicians coming out saying: that this was a result of climate change. And this really is just a recurring refrain, that we hear in the news. There will be some sort of natural disaster. And then we'll have people, in the media, or left-leaning politicians, who will make the charge: that climate change is the culprit. And we must take immediate action. So, mike (?), the question is: does the bible have anything to say, about climate change? Or does it offer any guidance, for how christians should respond, to this particular issue? (The host's fused repeat of his own question stands verbatim-only.) The answer: the bible doesn't speak specifically about climate change, in the sense that you're discussing. However, i would say: in genesis (the chapters as he gives them), we do find that god created human beings, to be stewards of this earth. Even before sin, god put adam in the garden of eden, and told him to tend it, to take care of it. So actually work is not a bad thing. It precedes sin. Now, the toil, and the suffering, and the penalty of sin, that's now associated with work, does come after the fall. But the principle of taking care of god's creation — and being a steward of god's creation, and working to tend it ('working to to uh tend it', as heard) — that is biblical. That is god's plan. So i think, in the general sense: yes, we christians should be interested in the care of the earth. Ecology, plants, animals. Maybe much more than we should — than we have been — in the past. Many times we think: well, the lord's coming. And, you know, we'll go into the millennial kingdom, the new heaven and earth. So we don't care about present earth. Well, that's not the way we live our lives. And that shouldn't be the way we treat the earth. So i think we should be good stewards. I think we are — when we talk about taking dominion, it's not meant to be in a dictatorial, or harsh, or exploitive way. But yes, we have oversight, of god's natural creation here on earth — of the plants and animals. And so we should do our part, to treat them — and we even use the word humanely, in treating animals: like a human should, in a responsible way, a caring way ('a care caring way', as heard).

Scriptures: Genesis 1; Genesis 2

Is there global warming — and is it caused by humans?

• Now, what about global warming? Well, from a scientific point of view, the first question is: is there really global warming? There's debate about that. I think most scientists say yes. But in the big scheme of things, those same scientists will say: well, a few thousand years ago, there was the ice age. Which is much more, you know, arduous, than what we experience now. They say — and there's plenty of evidence — glaciers came down, on the northern half of the united states. And so there's been drastic climate change, certainly, for sure, that didn't have anything to do with humans. There was the medieval warm period. And there was the little ice age, after that. Which — that didn't have anything to do with humans. So that's the first thing: is there global warming? Well, probably so. But it could be within the range of natural occurrences. Now, the second question is: is it caused by humans? (his own framing runs into the fused follow-up echo here, cut between the spans and disclosed on the record.) Because the idea is: that with our production of greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, and other — methane, other gases — that tend to hold temperature, in our atmosphere and on the earth: so, are we the cause of global warming? And again, most scientists would say yes. And that is a little more controversial, i think. When it comes to a hurricane, or tornado: it's really irresponsible of politicians, to try to claim that, to global warming. Because, first of all, it's hard to say (that) a climate change is related to a specific event. There may be some cause, of making it more violent, or volatile. But just to take an example: the recent tornadoes you spoke of — i think they're called e5 (the tornado rating, as heard) — well, it's been eight years, since the u.s. experienced that kind of tornado. So if global warming is really the cause of it: well, you mean we went eight years — so i guess there must have been global cooling, or global warming didn't do much — and then suddenly it zapped us. The same with hurricanes: whenever there's two or three hurricanes, they'll say: oh, it's global warming. And then you go several years, without a major hurricane hitting the u.s. Well, they ignore that. So i think it's pretty irresponsible, to try to do that. Now, it could be that they're increasing (in) intensity. But to a major extent: our population has increased dramatically. And our population, in vulnerable areas — and when we talk about hurricanes on the coast — has increased dramatically. So a lot of the damage is due, because we have more population, and more built up areas, that in years past would have been devastated — but there was no people, or a few people, or no infrastructure, a few buildings. And so, for example, one of the most devastating earthquakes in american history happened in the early 1800s, in the st. louis area. So bad, it caused the mississippi river to flow backward. But nobody knows about it. Why? Because hardly anybody lived there. And there were no structures there. So it caused minimal death, or damage. Although, if it happened today — and very few people know this, but i've actually experienced (an) earthquake here in st. louis; it was minor, but i felt it — and if that same earthquake happened today, it would be an unprecedented national disaster. But of course, it wouldn't be associated with global warming.

What are we supposed to do — the government-control critique

• So anyway: what are we supposed to do? (The movement opens in his own posing of the third question; the fused seam is disclosed on the record.) Having said all that: so there's a question — is there global warming? So, for our purposes, let's say yes. Is it caused by human activity? For our purposes, okay, let's say yes. Because that's what the majority of scientists say. But then there's a third question: what are we supposed to do about it? And here's where i have my real problem, with a lot of the discussion. Because the proposed solutions would do little or nothing ('would only would do little or nothing', in his doubled form), to actually change what they're alleging, as global warming. For example, here in the united states, we're one of the major producers — producers — of greenhouse gases. But even greater is china. And also very significant: russia, and india. Those three countries have not committed to any kind of significant action, compared to what people in the u.s. are saying should be done. So even if the u.s. totally shut down its economy, completely — without the cooperation of china, india, and russia, which they have not promised to cooperate — our actions would do no good. (the figure for a total shutdown stands in the cleaned text, unquoted here.) So all of this political maneuvering seems to be more in the way of virtue signaling, or (an) attempt to gain political control. Because their solution actually won't do any good. And even if those other nations cooperated, the kind of actions we're talking about will only marginally make a difference. So here's the problem: the advocates of radical change — it seems like they want to control the whole economy. And it seems like they have a — they want governmental control. And there's what i call the law of unintended consequences. When you give great government control: on paper, it sounds very good. But in the real world, there is no human being — or there is no elite group of humans — who are capable of managing the world economy. That's what we proved, with communism and socialism. It can't be done. The market — which is composed ('has composed', as heard) of the decisions of millions, and billions, of people — is far more efficient, in allocating resources and solving problems. Government can help, along the way. But government can't be the solution. The market has to be the solution. So: if you want to impose cost to the market, to reflect the real cost of pollution: fine. But then let the market figure out how to innovate, create new technologies, and allocate resources. I'm all for green energy. I'm all for conservation. I do recycling, at home. I'm all for, you know, electrical cars. Although that just displaces the problem, to the factories that generate electricity. They don't really solve the problem. And — but i'm all for any kind of technology: wind and solar power, nuclear technology. Which is interesting: because if you really relied on nuclear technology, that would eliminate ('illuminate', as heard) your global warming. But the same people that want us to take drastic action — most of them also hate nuclear energy. So they take that off the table. Which shows that there's — it's more about politics, than purely a scientific solution. So when you look at the law of unintended consequences, when you put government control: first of all, government can't find the solutions, without private enterprise, and capitalism, and innovation, and inventors, who are motivated by economic incentives. Second of all: there's drastic government inefficiencies. So you waste a huge amount of resources, when you give everything to the government, and the government gives it back to you. There's a lot lost, in the process. And then there's government favoritism: that when the government picks and chooses, who to subsidize, then they pick political cronies. They pick people, who are not necessarily on the cutting edge — edge — of technology, but are on the cutting edge of political manipulation. And so many times the billions of dollars, that government spends, are spent very inefficiently. And so my point is: even if you say — yes, let's do something about global warming — we have to be careful not to empower the government excessively; to focus on market solutions.

The emissions trend, the partnership appeal — and the break-off

• And here's what's interesting: i looked this up, because — and i was even surprised — u.s. greenhouse gas emissions have been in decline, for the last number of years. Now, in 2020, it (had) declined, they said, because of covid ('cove', as heard), which shut down things. But even in 2021, that trend is continuing. We are now back — the u.s. is now back — to the level of the 1970s, in greenhouse gas emissions. And that's considering there's been a 50 (percent) increase in population, since that time. It wasn't the government action. It was industries, finding more efficient ways: the internal combustion engine, and gasoline, and natural gas, and nuclear energy. So, without the government doing anything: the economy itself — despite a 50 (percent) increase in population — has gone back to 50 years ago, (in) greenhouse gas emissions. That lets me know: whatever solutions we want — it needs to be a collaborative effort, that doesn't crush the economy, and doesn't impose drastic government controls. But is a partnership of all of us, that allows the energy sector, and the various industries, and our economy, to continue to grow, and to be healthy, and to give appropriate input. I think: if we all work together, with respect for private enterprise, then we can create a better environment overall — without — [captured text ends mid-sentence]

[Captured text ends mid-sentence]

• The captured answer breaks off inside the sentence 'then we can create a better environment overall without —' at the close of the partnership appeal; no outro or closing line stands in the delivered file. It stands as captured, on the same footing as the earlier truncated items in this run; the truncation is disclosed on the record's face.

Scripture index: Genesis 1; Genesis 2.