Justice

Climate Change and Christian Responsibility

By Prof. Jonathan Boston / 6 August 2006

A sermon preached at Wellington Anglican Cathedral, 6 August 2006.

1. Introduction

Thank you for the invitation to contribute to this service.

Today marks the 61st anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima a human act that caused a huge loss of life and significant environmental damage. But even this terrible, destructive event which resulted in tens of thousands of deaths pales into insignificance when compared with the likely damaging consequences of human-induced climate change over the coming century.

In my remarks this evening I would like to comment briefly on the evidence of global warming and its impacts. I will then discuss some of the relevant theological considerations and principles that should shape our response to the challenges posed by climate change, and conclude by exploring the implications for churches and individuals.

2. The Evidence of Global Warming

First, to the evidence of global warming: I realize that the issues surrounding climate change are complex and, in some quarters, controversial. Let me start, therefore, by quoting from a Statement issued in mid 2005 by the heads of 12 of the world’s leading scientific academies, including those of United States National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Societies of Canada and the United Kingdom, and the Chinese, Indian and Russian Academy of Sciences.

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However, there is now strong evidence that significant global warming in occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures, and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.

The Statement goes on to say:

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth; in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today {now over 380 and rising at close to 3 ppm a year}, higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). {And probably higher than at any time during the past 20 million years.}

Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperature will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.

I might add that the fourth assessment report of the IPCC which is due out early in 2007 is likely to suggest that the evidence of global warming is even stronger than in 2001 (when it produced its third assessment report) and that temperatures are expected to rise by 2100 by at least 2 degrees above 1990 levels, and probably much more than this. Moreover, we now know that:

•  2005 was the hottest (or second hottest) year around the world since records began;

•  The first six months of 2006 were the warmest first half of any year in the continental United States since records began in 1895;

•   Many parts of Europe have just recorded the warmest ever July – in Britain, for instance, it was the warmest month ever recorded, by a margin of 0.5 degrees centigrade (the mean temperature for July was 17.8);

•   Mid-winter temperatures in much of Sth America have been up to 7 degrees centigrade higher than average, with much of central China up to 5 degrees higher (see The Sunday Times, 30 July 2006) ; and

•   There have been some absolutely extraordinary climatic events occurring all over the globe.

To give but one illustration: the Island of Svalbard, in the Arctic Ocean above Norway at 80 degrees north has been recording some phenomenal temperatures this year. Some months have had average temperatures as much as 12.6 degrees centigrade above the relevant monthly means. This would be like Wellington having July mean temperatures well in excess of January mean temperatures. The April 2006 mean temperature on Svalbard was almost five standard deviations above the mean, what is known as a ’5 sigma event’ in the language of statistics. Under the assumption of stationary ‘normal’ statistics, such an event is considered astronomically improbable (< 1 in 106 or less than 1 in a million) as rare as the summer heat wave in Europe in 2003 (which was a 5 sigma event in Switzerland, and a 3 sigma event over Europe as a whole). (see: www.realclimate.org)

How do we account for these extraordinary temperatures in Svalbard: part of the answer, it seems, has been the lack of ice around the island during the winter and spring, and this is no doubt connected to the retreat of the Arctic ice cap which has contracted as much as 20% in its extent over the past four decades (and lost 40% of its thickness), and is currently retreating at the rate of an area roughly the size of New Zealand per year.

Why should such evidence of global warming be of concern? The answer is very simple. Global warming of the magnitudes predicted will have huge ecological, social, economic and political impacts, and most of these impacts will be negative, particularly for the poorest people of the world.

Already the impacts are serious. Let me mention a few:

1. Droughts are getting longer and more intense, putting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people at risk;
2. There has been a dramatic increase in wildfires in many different countries, including Australia and the US more than 60,000 so far in the US this year;
3. The intensity and duration of storms is increasing, with more category 4 and 5 hurricanes and more heavy precipitation events of both rain and snow;
4. Most of the world’s glaciers are retreating, with major implications for soil erosion and water flows, and consequent downstream impacts on water supplies for industry, agriculture and human consumption, and for hydro power generation;
5. Economic losses from climatic events are increasing: the damage caused by storms and other climatic events in 2005 is conservatively estimated at over US$200 billion, with over US$40 billion in insured losses much of this due to hurricane Katrina;
6. As parts of the globe warm, they are being afflicted by various pests. To give but one example: the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia is causing the loss of valuable forests of lodgepine because newly hatched bugs are not being killed by the cold as was previously the case, enabling them to spread like wildfire. Thus far, the mountain pine beetle has destroyed 22 million acres of forest, an area close to the size of the North Island, and within 6 years it is expected that 80% of the mature lodgepines in BC will have been destroyed, with a risk that similar damage will be done right across North America.

If all this is not worrying enough, the implications for the future are much worse. For instance, sea-level rise during this century (of around half a metre) is expected to inundate many low lying delta regions in Bangladesh, India and China, and swamp a number of small, low-lying island states. Sir John Houghton, the former chair of the IPCC scientific assessment and Professor of Physics at Oxford University, and a devout Christian, has drawn attention to research indicating that there could be well over 150 million environmental refugees by 2050; and at the recent Climate Change and Governance Conference here in Wellington, Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former Chair of Shell, stated that we could well witness, over the next two-to-three decades, mass migrations of people on a scale that we can scarcely dream of at the moment.

One final point before turning to matters of theology: I know that there are a small number of scientists who claim that recent climatic changes are due largely (or even solely) to natural causes, like changes in solar radiation, and have little or nothing to do with the activities of human beings. Even if they are correct, and this is highly improbable, there are still reasons to be deeply concerned. For instance, the large increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are the direct result of humans burning fossil fuels, are causing the world’s oceans to acidify (as they absorb carbon dioxide). If this process of acidification continues, the damage to marine ecosystems will be immense. Already the oceans are about 30% more acidic than 200 years ago (before the industrial revolution) and probably more acidic than they have been for millions of years. If no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is highly likely that many sea creatures that secrete calcium carbonate to build shells or skeletons (like corals, snails and many varieties of plankton) will be damaged, with their shells or skeletons starting to dissolve.

3. Theological Issues

What does our Christian theology have to offer as we confront the issues of global warming? In the few minutes available, I can do no more that sketch a quick answer. Let me make five quick points (I am indebted to Rev Dr Graham Redding for some of the following material):

First, the account of Creation in the book of the Genesis affirms the fundamental and intrinsic goodness of creation. Notice, in particular, that God declares the goodness of creation before human beings enter the equation. This strongly suggests that the goodness of creation is unrelated to its utilitarian value for human beings. So, then, what is the purpose of creation and what is it good for? The Biblical answer, as provided in the Psalms (such as Ps. 148) and Genesis (see 2:2-3) is that Creation is meant to reflect and shine forth its Creator’s glory and to share in His worship.

Second, human beings have a two-fold responsibility in relation to God’s creation: first as priests of creation, and second as stewards.

• As priests of creation: Made only a little lower than Angels and crowned with honour and glory (to quote Psalm 8), human beings are called to give voice to creation’s praise of its Creator. Our calling, as those created in the image of the Creator, is to continue God’s blessing of His creation, preserving its beauty, nurturing its fruitfulness, and offering back to the Creator that which He originally supplied.

•  As stewards of creation: The creation narrative in Genesis 1 tells us that human beings have been granted dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8:6). But note that dominion does not mean domination, in the sense of self-assertion or coercive rule. From a Christian perspective, dominion is defined by the Lordship of Christ, which is characterised by servanthood, humble obedience, reconciliation and restoration. We must work in partnership with, and seek to restore, the creation, not damage or destroy it.

Third, from a Biblical perspective, the roots of the ecological crisis lie in human disobedience. The consequence of disordered relations, as recounted in the Genesis narrative, is expulsion from the Garden of Eden. This suggests two things:

• For all its intrinsic goodness and possibilities, there is now a sense in which the creation is in bondage, and the nature of human work is no longer described in terms of vocation but rather of toil (Gen. 3:17). As such, the solution to the ecological crisis is found not merely in a series of practical steps to solve certain problems, but also in the healing of those disordered relations. In other words, the way forward for our planet is mapped out theologically as much as it is pragmatically. Recovery of a Sabbath theology involving rest, integration and worship, is a vital necessity.

• Equally, we cannot return to the Garden of Eden or a mythical paradise. The primary image in the final chapters of the Prophet Isaiah (such as Isaiah 65: 17-25) and in the Book of Revelation is not of a Garden but of a City, a new Jerusalem, a place that will be a delight, where the sound of weeping and crying will be heard no more. Note, therefore, that a biblical ecological ethic does not regard science and industrial development as evil or corrupt because they tamper with the natural order of things, as represented by the Garden-image. Similarly, the biblical emphasis is not on a return to a mythical paradise, but rather one of sustainable development and the serving of the vision of what God intends.

Fourth, there is the Biblical theme of the new creation: the Apostle Paul talks about the creation waiting with eager longing for the glory of God to be revealed (Romans 8:18-23). He also talks about creation groaning in labour pains. The image here is not merely that of pain associated with suffering, but rather of pain associated with birth.

But what is being born? For Paul, it is a new creation, the advent of which is just as significant as the first creation in Genesis. For John (the author of Revelation), it is a new heaven and a new earth. Whatever the terminology, the emphasis is on a new reality emerging from the old – related to the old but yet distinct.

As far as the New Testament is concerned, this new reality has begun in the person of Jesus Christ, the ruler of all. The passage from Colossians 1:15-20 is highly relevant here. It refers to Christ as the One in whom all things were made, in whom all things hold together, in whom all things find their purpose, and through whom all things have been reconciled.

The Lordship of Christ applies not only to human conduct, but also to the natural world. As the disciples are moved to exclaim as He calms the storm: “Who is this man that even the wind and the waves obey him?” (Mark 4:41) In His presence all that is disintegrated is reintegrated. Does this not lie at the heart of the Resurrection, whereby even the disintegrating forces of death, through which our bodies decay, are reintegrated. In Him all things find their true shalom.

Notice that Jesus’ dominion is not a raw display of power or the exercising of an arbitrary will, like some tyrant, but the impulse of love and compassion. As we exercise our God-ordained dominion over the natural world, we are obliged to follow His example. This implies respect and restraint.

Fifth and finally, the Biblical themes mentioned thus far provide us with a wonderful theology of hope. The challenges that lie ahead will be very daunting, but we believe in a God who is committed to His Creation, eloquently demonstrated by the Incarnation and Resurrection of God’s son. We can thus have hope for the future. There is no reason for despair or feelings of hopelessness.

4. Implications for Living

What, then, does all this mean for us today? How are we to be responsible Christians in the midst of the current ecological crisis – or indeed crises?

Let me conclude with three quick points:

First, we have a responsibility to inform ourselves about the science of climate change and related issues, and take seriously the warnings of reputable scientists and authoritative scientific bodies like the IPCC. Of course, some of our current scientific theories, understandings and predictions will ultimately be found wanting. But that is an inherent feature of scientific research. For by definition, science is about the careful testing of falsifiable propositions and conjectures. But the fact that some of what scientists believe today will be found wanting in the future provides no basis for being dismissive or sceptical today. On the contrary, the very fact that our understanding is partial and incomplete, and the very fact that there is such uncertainty, means that we need to be even more cautious.

Second, in my view the Biblical ethic of stewardship means that we have a responsibility to try and prevent dangerous, human-induced climate change. Recent evidence suggests that if we are to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at no more than around 400-450 ppm of CO2 in the interests of avoiding dangerous human-induced climate change, we will need an 80-90% reduction in annual global emissions by the latter part of this century. This is a huge challenge, but at a global level it is probably technically feasible, even with existing technologies.

In my view we have a responsibility, both as individuals and as a church community, to contribute to the wider policy debate about how such reductions will be achieved. This includes the policy debate at all governmental levels – international, national and local.

Third, the church has a responsibility to provide a lead. If strong scientific evidence suggests that we must reduce our carbon footprint significantly, then Christians – guided by the Biblical ethic of stewardship – should be amongst the first to respond. What this means in practical terms will vary from individual to individual, but it will almost certainly mean buying smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, travelling by air much less, using public transport more, and relying more on renewable sources of energy for electricity, heat and transport.

I realize that many will say, “but nothing I can do will make a difference”. My response is to quote a British parliamentarian 200 years ago who said: “No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do so little.”

I would also remind you of Jesus’ words after He told the parable contrasting the actions of the faithful and unfaithful stewards: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).

Sermon preached at Wellington Anglican Cathedral, 6 August 2006