How We Should Approach Climate Change And The Call To Reduce Radically Our Use Of Carbon Fuels

Recently World magazine writer, Onize Ohikere, reported the following about young people zealous to fight climate change:[1]

Millions of students around the world skipped school on Friday for a global climate change strike. The movement included more than 5,000 demonstrations in 156 countries, including Germany, Nigeria, and Tokyo. Young demonstrators held signs that read, “You are destroying our future,” and “There is no planet B.” In the United States, organizers expect more than 800 events. New York City Public Schools said parents could excuse their students to participate in the strike.

What spurred the demonstrations? Swedish teen Greta Thunberg started a smaller movement last year to encourage her peers to demand action from their leaders. This year’s protests precede a United Nations Climate Action Summit that kicks off Monday [Sept. 23] in New York.

This reminds us that unless a person is totally unplugged from television, news sources and periodicals, it is hard to remain unaware of the dire predictions about our planet due to climate change. Both the supposition that the climate has changed radically due to human influence and the predicted destructive consequences are communicated as facts and alleged as well-documented through scientific data, which suggests they cannot be doubted. Nor should they be ignored.

Consider some other recent examples:

• “Earth is sick with multiple and worsening environmental ills killing millions of people yearly, a new U.N. report says. Climate change, a global major extinction of animals and plants, a human population soaring toward 10 billion, degraded land, polluted air, and plastics, pesticides and hormone-changing chemicals in the water are making the planet an increasing unhealthy place for people, says the scientific report issued once every few years…. Several other scientists also praised the report, which draws on existing science, data, and maps…. The scientists said the most important and pressing problems facing humankind are global warming and loss of biodiversity because they are permanent and affect so many people in so many different ways.”[2]

• “Nature is in more trouble now than at any other time in human history, with extinction looming over 1 million species of plants and animals, scientists said today in the United Nations first comprehensive report on biodiversity. It’s all because of humans, but it’s not too late to fix the problem…. Conservation scientists from around the world convened in Paris to issue the report, which exceeded 1,000 pages. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services included more than 450 researchers who used 15,000 scientific and government reports…. The poor in less-developed-countries bear the greatest burden. The report’s 39-page summary highlighted ways people are reducing biodiversity…. Permitting climate change from the burning of fossil fuels to make it too hot, wet or dry for some species to survive. Almost half of the world’s land mammals—not including bats—and nearly a quarter of the birds already have had their habitats hit hard by global warming.”[3]

• “I am a climate optimist, but it’s up to us to act fast—to stop burning fossil fuels right now and start transitioning to clean energy…. Based on the best scientific evidence available to date, we have less than 12 years to mobilize a complete conversion from fossil fuels to green energy, or we risk dangerously destabilizing Earth’s climate.”[4]

• “I don’t make judgments. I just say the facts, that things are changing: 2017 was a devastating year for hurricanes. These things are happening. Call it what you want, but we need to look at the environment and we need to talk about it.”[5]

What is interesting about these examples is that they all come within a period of just a few months in the kinds of main-line sources to which most persons have access. They represent the ongoing catechesis that has resulted in convincing the minds of the average person. What are the convictions to which many have come and that are implied in these examples?

• There is currently significant climate change that is the result of human actions. Science has allegedly proven this. 

• This significant change is seen in weather patterns throughout the earth, such as the increase in severity and number of hurricanes. 

• This significant change will have dire consequences upon people (especially the poor) and upon animals and plants. 

• The main culprit in climate change is the use of fossil fuels by humans. 

• The way to turn around these trends and to prevent devastation of the earth is to engage in radical reductions in fossil fuels right away. 

There are multiple motivations for Christians to take note of and to be involved in environmental issues. The first and most important is that all God has created—which is all the world (Gen. 1:1; Psalm 100:3)—belongs to him (Ps. 24:1), is for his glory (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16), is good (Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:4), and is entrusted to us for our joy (1 Tim. 6:17). This means we are stewards of it and are called to take care of it faithfully (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; Mt. 25:14-30). Certainly, regardless of what any Christian has concluded on the above issues, there is ample motivation in the Bible for us to care about this good earth God has created and entrusted to us.[6]

A second motivation found among some Christians is the long-standing accusation made against Christianity that the teachings of the Bible, especially in the call of Genesis 1:26-28 to humans to have dominion over and to subdue the earth, has led to destruction of the earth.[7] Though the reality is that any lack of concern for the environment and true destructive behavior toward it arose from those who believed man has total dominion over creation apart from any submission to God (descendants of the Enlightenment) and not from a truly consistent biblical worldview,[8] nonetheless, some Christians still feel the sting of such accusations and conclude that if we are to make a successful defense of the Christian faith we must show we are not anti-environment.

This second motivation leads to the third, namely, in our current world in which the environment plays such a huge role in the minds of so many and especially in light of accusations that deniers of climate change are much of the problem behind our current environmental crisis, there can be strong motivation to be involved and to adopt the current climate change doctrine espoused above. Some Christians might even think we have to do this in order to be taken seriously by the world around us.

Yet, what should we make of this doctrine that has concluded humans are the cause of destructive climate change that is having significant negative impact upon our planet and will only get worse if we do not radically and immediately reduce our use of carbon fuels? 

In this and four subsequent blog posts I will argue that we should be good stewards of creation, yet, we have strong reasons to doubt and to reject current climate change doctrine as just outlined. I will do this by looking at five major topics.[9]

1. An Explanation: The Earth’s Atmosphere Causes Both Warming And Cooling Influences On The Earth. 

We begin here for two reasons. First, if we are to discuss intelligently climate change, at the heart of which is global warming, we need to understand how our planet is warmed. Additionally, we must see that there are not only warming, but also cooling, influences at work. This also opens the door to a different and more complete perspective on what is currently happening on earth.

Warming Effects Of The Atmosphere
Since the warming of the earth is such a current emphasis, we will launch into our discussion by understanding how this happens.  

We are able to live on the earth because its atmosphere keeps it warm enough from the sun. The way this is done is often called “the greenhouse effect.” In other words, part of the atmosphere retains heat energy from the sun.[10]

Ninety-nine percent (78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen) of the atmosphere does not hold in the sun’s heat. There are fourteen other elements in the remaining one percent, Within these fourteen, those that don’t have a warming effect constitute 0.55% of the atmosphere. The ones that do have a warming effect constitute about 0.45% of the atmosphere and are called “greenhouse gases.”

As we zero in on the greenhouse gases we discover that water vapor makes up 80% (which is about 0.4% of the entire atmosphere—a little higher at the surface and diminishing with altitude). “The other greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (about 0.04 % of the total atmosphere), methane (about 0.00018%), nitrous oxide (about 0.00003%), ozone (less than 0.000007%), and miscellaneous trace gases. All these other greenhouse gases (apart from water) total less than 0.05 % of the atmosphere.” It is clear, then, that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas—“responsible for about 80% of the…warming…of the atmosphere.” Since another 15% of the warming effect derives from clouds (clouds are made of water droplets, not vapor),[11] most scientists conveniently combine water vapor and the net effect of warming clouds to say that 95% of greenhouse warming comes from water. “The remaining approximately 5% of greenhouse warming comes from carbon dioxide (about 3.6%), methane (about 0.36%), nitrous oxide (about 0.95%) and miscellaneous gases including ozone (about 0.072%).”

Unlike a greenhouse,[12] “greenhouse gases don’t keep warm air from rising and blowing away. Instead, they absorb heat energy and then radiate it outward.”[13] “Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy (heat) [that comes from the sun to the earth’s surface] and then, having absorbed it, radiate it outward. Some of it goes up into space, thus cooling the earth by moving the heat away, but some of it radiates back down to the earth’s surface and warms the earth.”[14] It is this dual effect that keeps the earth from getting too cold or too warm. God’s wise design as seen in the “greenhouse effect” should lead us to give him thanks and praise!

Cooling Effects Of The Atmosphere
Without the greenhouse effect the earth’s temperature would average about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. With it the average temperature is about 59 degrees Fahrenheit.[15] Yet, the reason the average temperature is not higher is due to cooling influences that moderate the greenhouse effect. These influences include evaporation, precipitation, the upward movement of warm air, wind, and thousands of other feedbacks.[16] With the greenhouse effect and without such cooling influences the average temperature on earth would be 140 degrees Fahrenheit. “Since 59 degrees is about 42 percent of 140…the feedbacks considered as a whole eliminate about 58 percent of ‘greenhouse warming.’”[17]

The Controversy About Carbon Dioxide
Those who believe global warming is a threat caused by humans argue that “human activities are causing the concentration of greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide, secondarily methane, and to a much lesser extent ozone and chlorofluorocarbons—to increase, and that this increased concentration could warm the earth enough to cause significant, perhaps catastrophic, harm to people and ecosystems.”[18] What contributes to this warming the most, so goes the argument, is carbon dioxide, which is responsible for about 3.6% of the total greenhouse warming effect. This carbon dioxide comes from the burning of organic material, such as wood, as well as from the burning of coal, gasoline, or natural gas (methane). As a result, much of our energy production currently releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.[19]

We must be quick to point out that Carbon dioxide, which is also emitted by all insects, animals, and humans (so it is a natural part of God’s creation) has many important functions. It regulates our blood flow and rate of breathing and it is crucial for photosynthesis in plants. We ought to see the following, then:

Thus, in a wonderful cycle of nature that has been designed by God, animals and people continually use up oxygen and release carbon dioxide for plants to use, and then plants use up that carbon dioxide and release oxygen for people and animals to use. Carbon dioxide is thus essential to all the major life systems on the earth. We should not think of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but as an essential part of God’s wise arrangement of life on earth.[20]

With carbon dioxide playing such a vital role in creation, we need to ask, where do fears of climate change arise? Consider the following points:[21]

• “Many atmospheric scientists believe the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from…about 0.028 percent to 0.040 percent, since preindustrial times (before about 1750).” 

• The theory suggests that this increase came “from the burning of carbon-based (‘fossil’) fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas.” 

• What is the effect of raising carbon dioxide to the degree it has been since preindustrial times? If we round the increase to doubling the amount, “according to different estimates, would raise earth’s average surface temperature, before feedbacks, by about 1.8 degrees to 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit. Frankly, that is a relatively small increase in average temperature that does not scare anybody with knowledge of climatology.” 

• “What causes some people to fear much greater warming is the belief that climate feedback magnifies this warming.[22] So that belief is built into the computer models that predict global temperatures for many decades into the future.”

• “All the computer models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that climate feedbacks magnify the warming that comes from greenhouse gases.” 

It is crucial for us to stop and highlight that fears of future global warming rest on predictions of computer models. These models, which are not infallible, are dependent upon the data humans put into them and are based on giving different weights to different factors and different formulas based on different assumptions.

Therefore, the fears of future global warming rest on hypotheses represented by computer models, not on empirical observations of the real world. These models, by assuming various feedbacks that add to the greenhouse effect, predict that warming from doubled carbon dioxide since preindustrial time would result in an increase of 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit to a midrange estimate of 5.4 degrees to a high estimate of about 7 degrees over the whole period. (Global average temperature has already risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution, leaving about another 1.7 degree to 3.6 degrees to 5.2 degrees yet to come, of the models are right.)”[23] (emphasis added)

Those who have offered the most dire predictions and advocated for the greatest and most radical changes to our use of fossil fuels have used the larger numbers in the models. This leads to assertions that we have less than twelve years to act before climate change and its consequences are irreversible.

We must also see there is another way to project the effects. Since we know that climate feedbacks have in the past reduced the warming effects of greenhouse gases by 58 %, it is also most likely this would continue. Many scientists argue there is no justification for concluding the feedbacks will act differently with human-caused greenhouses gases than naturally-caused greenhouse gases.[24]  

What would the result be if feedbacks continue to have this effect? Earlier it was mentioned that the increase in carbon dioxide from preindustrial times would raise surface temperatures from 1.8 degree Fahrenheit to 2.16 degrees. Yet, if the feedbacks decreased these by 58%, this would mean the net effect would be a rise from 0.76 degree Fahrenheit to 0.9 degree. “An increase in average world temperature of less than 1 degree Fahrenheit is not dangerous. In fact, in general, such slight warming would be beneficial especially to agriculture…. Longer growing seasons would make food more abundant and therefore more affordable, a great benefit to the world’s poor.”[25]

Conclusion
Must we, then, believe the dire climate change predictions?  If we base our answer on actual empirical data about the effects of climate feedbacks (in other words, if we based our conclusion on observable events that have already occurred), we discover the effects of greenhouses gases are not multiplied as the computer models suggest.

Yet, there are also two other reasons to doubt the conclusions: Some biblical principles that call them into question and also other scientific evidence that lead us to doubt the dire predictions.

We will turn now to look at the principles from the Bible in our next post.

---

[1] The following was posted at world.wng.org on September 20, 2019.

[2] This is from an Associated Press article covering the sixth Global Environment Outlook, released March 13, 2019, at a U.N. conference in Nairobi, Kenya: “UN: Environment Is Deadly, Worsening Mess, But not Hopeless, “ Kearney Hub (March 13, 2019): 8A.

[3] Seth Borenstein (AP Science Writer), “U.N. Report Finds Humans Hammering Nature Hard,” Kearney Hub (May 6, 2019): 1A.

[4] Sahar Mansoor (Policy analyst for the Selco Foundation, which focuses on sustainable energy solutions), side bar in Mary Robinson, “Losing Ground,” The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 39.

[5] Barry Rassin (Rotary International President), “Let’s Start The Conversation,” The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 34. This quote is found in an interview Rassin did with The Rotarian magazine. This interview stands as the lead to a number of articles giving the sense of being non-partisan and that all are crafted to give a call to Rotarians to be part of the solution to climate change. After all, science has proven the facts of climate change and its devastating effects on the earth, animals, plants, and people (especially the poor). So, who wouldn’t want to be part of the solution? The implication of this particular quote is that hurricanes are greater in number and severity due to climate change.
The lead to the interview with Rassin reads: “The environment isn’t one of Rotary’s six areas of focus, but it’s deeply intertwined with each of them.”

[6] New Testament Scholar, Douglas J. Moo, made this very point in his article, “Nature In the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology And The Environment,” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society, 49 (2006): 449-88. He argues that man created in the image of God, as vice regents, who are to steward nature in God-glorifying, God-centered, and in Christ-emulating ways, along with the reality of the resurrection and the future new heaven and new earth (new creation) and its impact upon us now, all argue for us to be good stewards of the environment.
Both the document, “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call To Action” (from the Evangelical Climate Initiative) and also the document, “A Call To Truth, Prudence, And Protection Of The Poor: An Evangelical Response To Global Warming” (from the Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship Of Creation), attest to the concern Christians of different perspectives have for the environment.

[7] This accusation was first and famously made by Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots Of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science, 155 (1967): 1203-7.

[8] Moo, “Nature In The New Creation:” 13.

[9] For the direction of these blog posts and three of the five major topics I am heavily dependent upon Wayne Grudem, “Stewardship Of The Environment” (Chapter 41), in Christian Ethics: An Introduction To Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 1095-1169.

[10] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1134. The following discussion about the makeup of the atmosphere also comes from this same source.

[11] Some clouds warm and some cool the earth.

[12] The greenhouse gases don’t actually function like a greenhouse.

[13] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1135-36.

[14] Ibid, 1136.

[15] Ibid, 1136.

[16] Ibid, 1136.

[17] Ibid, 1137.

[18] Ibid, 1137.

[19] Ibid, 1137.

[20] Ibid, 1137-38.

[21] The following points come from Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1138.

[22] For an example of this way of thinking see Mary Robinson, “Losing Ground,” in the Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 36. This article was adapted from her book, written with Caitriona Palmer, Climate-Justice: Hope, Resilience, And The Fight For A Sustainable Future (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018).

[23] Ibid, 1138-39.

[24] Ibid, 1139.

[25] Ibid, 1139.