This was a question from a listener of my podcast

"Now that I understand what you are saying about these people of influence preaching this but doing that, I wanted to know how you felt about this topic on a more personal level. Do you feel that it is important for a person to take "green" steps? And if so, what kinds? Or do you feel that the earth will naturally erase your "steps" and balance itself out?"

This is my reply...

I think the earth is a lot tougher than many want to give it credit for. Forest fires, volcanoes, cows, all of these things are doing "violence" to the ecosystem... if you apply the standards to them that people like Al Gore apply to humans. Without being totally cliché, life is a cycle. There is life and death, growth and decay, production and pollution and all of these things are part of the system and therefore (excuse the moral terminology) "right". Further, often times death, decay, and pollution are the impetus for life, growth, and production. If a small village in Africa gets an electric generator that allows the village to power a mechanical pump to get fresh clean water from a deep-well, thereby reducing infection and improving the standard of life overall, isn't that a good thing? If you answer yes, then you have to allow the idea that pollution is a good thing in that case.

And is it unreasonable to allow that that same village with its increased population (because of clean water) will have to come up with more resources to provide for itself? Which means farming will have to expand. Which means land and tools will have to be bought and cultivated. Which will mean the selling of some crops to other villages to buy said tools and land. Which will mean (over time) that there might be expendable money and people might not want to get around by donkey anymore... and someone might buy a car.

 

Some people will read this last paragraph and be horrified. These are people who still believe in the "noble savage" construct. That the Indians were the ones who got it right, and we somehow got it backwards. To them... progress is bad. As a matter of fact, aboriginal peoples, American or otherwise, can really lay no ultimate claim to being wiser or more "green" due to any conscious choice. They took what they needed from the land, in much the same way that we do today. What we see today, and do not see in the past however, is the fact that there are some who abuse the privilege of taking from the land. (As an aside, I would note that there probably were Indians that took more than "just what they needed" but that doesn't mean I expect to see it in any historical accounts.)

I use the word "privilege" with deliberate purpose because, in accordance with my Juedo-Christian beliefs, it is my understanding that the earth was made for and given to humans. We were given both dominion over the earth and the responsibility of stewardship of the earth. This means I do not support industries that rape the land, I do not support rampant abuses in pollution, and (this may come as a surprise to many) I truly think organizations like Greenpeace and other "tree-hugger" watchdog groups are necessary. Again, my belief system tells me that man, left to his own devices (or, if you will, to the desires of his heart), will generally error on the side selfishness and greed, and I think it's a good thing (maybe even a Godly thing) for someone to be keeping an eye the "heart" of industry, if for no other reason than to keep them honest. But that doesn't mean I don't think that there is a balance that can be struck. Pollution is bad. But our society cannot live without altering its surroundings. Not even the Indians could do that.

More (perhaps most) importantly there is a third thing my faith tells me and that is that God gave us freedom of choice. I have the freedom to choose bad things and I think all peoples should be allowed that same choice. If I want to choose to pollute, that's my choice. If I want to drive a tin can that seats two, gets 35 mpg and increases my chances of dying in a collision by 25% then, by God, that's my choice too.

The argument often goes though, that I cannot choose to pollute because it affects others. When it comes to drinking water and buried nuke waste, I tend to agree. But the idea of global warming doesn't fall under the same umbrella two main reasons.

#1) there is still much debate going on as to

a)     what is global warming?

b)    Is it actually warming globally?

c)     Is it anthropogenic?

d)    Could we stop it even if we wanted to?

#2) those that are advancing the idea of alterable, anthropogenic, global warming will not allow for any debate on the aforementioned issues.

 

Therefore, the idea that I should give up any freedoms that I might posses for an idea that is unproven and un-debate-able is very loathsome to me. I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that this debate will ever happen, and indeed we will probably launch headlong into a future constructed by those who hijack science in the name of the common good and for their own personal fortunes. But that doesn’t make it right and I will continue to challenge all those that blindly hold to the religion of environmentalism while blithely claiming that what “they” believe is science and I am some sort of “global warming denier” because I have questions.