Sunday, April 22, 2007

Feeling the Heat

“The Earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” -- Psalm 24:1

Today was Earth Day and I have felt the need to write the following for almost a year now…

Let’s agree that no one knows the whole truth and that a lot of what we’re talking about when discussing “global warming” is, ultimately, educated supposition. Let us also agree that many environmentalists have presented their case with more than a little overblown alarmism. That said, let us finally agree that the overwhelming majority of scientists now believe the earth is warming and human beings are at fault.

The reports come so quick and fast these days that one can hardly keep track. Nearly all agree there is a massive problem looming. While there are dissenters, the vast majority of climatologists who have devoted their lives and reputations to their data believe the time for argument is long past.

Why then do so many on the Right and especially those within Christendom refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem? Why are so many in environmental denial? Many Christians are openly skeptical of the reality of the environmental crisis, viewing environmentalism as either a liberal issue or New Age propaganda. Worse, many Christians don’t see the point in saving something that the Bible says will eventually be destroyed anyway. Evangelicalism’s forefathers rejected science (and in many ways, still do) and Christians’ reluctance may well be a residual ripple effect of that divide. Or it could just be a further indication of how deeply in bed evangelical Christianity is with the Republican Party.

Thankfully, these mindsets are beginning to give way, and the voices of Christian environmentalists, muffled for so many decades, are now starting to be heard.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which oversees 45,000 congregations and represents 30 million church members nationwide has spearheaded much of Evangelicalism’s current green spirituality. While environmentalists lost an ally in disgraced pastor and former NAE president, Ted Haggard, vice president Richard Cizik has been shown to be the real powerhouse behind the NAE’s initiatives. The NAE has announced that evangelical leaders are committed to spreading the word that protecting the environment is a profound religious responsibility and that environmental issues, including global warming and climate change, will be at the forefront of the organization’s agenda.

The NAE isn’t the only one. From smaller evangelical organizations to the Holy See, Christians are finally taking a stand. Evangelical organizations have been writing position papers declaring this a consensus issue, and hundreds of pastors and Christian university presidents have pledged action against global warming.

But not everyone is getting on board. Last year, when Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” debuted, the Southern Baptist Convention publicly condemned it. In response to Cizik’s initiatives, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson called for his ousting and silencing. Their reason? Christians’ energies would be diverted from the truly important things—abortion and gay marriage.

In my opinion, Dobson, Falwell, Robinson and their ilk are the voice of a Christianity so deeply compromised that it needs to be treated as a threat to the cause of Christ, not simply a nuisance. That aside, it seems odd to me that anyone should condemn people concerned about the environment. Does anyone really believe Dobson, Falwell and Robinson are infallible? If these preachers feel the need to devote all their energies toward a single-issue theology, then, as much as I think they’re misguided, more power to them. But why on earth, would they feel the need to chastise others for their callings?

What these giants of Christianity (and yes, I write that with my tongue so firmly planted in my cheek I may sprain something) don’t realizes is that this is not a false choice—preaching the gospel or being socially compassionate—each are exquisitely intertwined. This is not a “one of the other” sort of argument. While the pattern used to be that mainline churches preached a primarily social gospel and evangelical churches preached a saving gospel, evangelicals seem to be waking up to social justice, realizing it is a fundamental, essential even, ingredient in saving souls. (Now if only the mainline churches can recognize this necessary duality).

The truth is, a “theology of ecology” is finally taking hold. Evangelical Christianity's environmental apathy seems to be disappearing. And why shouldn’t it? As I see it, we have a Biblical imperative to be environmentalists. After all, the Bible contains numerous examples of the care with which we are expected to treat the environment:

Leviticus 25:1-12 speaks of the care Israel was to have for the land. Deuteronomy 25:4 and 22:6 indicates the proper care for and respect of wildlife. Isaiah 5:8-10 records the Lord judging those who have misused the land. Job 38:25-28 and Psalm 104 speak of God's nurture and care for His creation and every living thing in it. Romans 8:17 calls us to rescue and restore creation from its fallen condition. Even Jesus spoke on several occasions (Matthew 6:26, 10:29) about how much the Father cared for even the smallest creature.

Genesis says that, “God saw all that He had made and behold, it was very good.” If it was good in God’s eyes, would He really look kindly on us destroying it? When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden, God gave them dominion over the earth. This did not mean they could rape the planet indiscriminatingly. In fact, God set them up not as rulers, but as stewards with a responsibility to care for the garden. God is the owner of every inch of the planet, not us. We do not exercise dominion over nature as though we are entitled to exploit it, but as caretakers of a special treasure placed in our trust.

To use the earth for our own interests alone is blasphemy. How much destruction has to take place for people to wake up and admit something is wrong? We want to save the earth, not because we feel creation is holy, but because the Creator IS and we should treat His magnificent handiwork with the utmost respect. By failing to fulfill our responsibilities to the earth, we are losing a great evangelistic opportunity, to say nothing of being disobedient to our Lord. Christians should and must be at the vanguard of the environmental movement. Saving the planet is no less than an act of worship.

Which side would you rather be on—those who say we should be mindful of our impact on the planet and clean up the earth or those who say that we bear little responsibility and all we are currently experiencing is some sort of natural cycle? Which has the greatest to lose and which has the greatest to gain? Frankly, I’d rather side with the doomsayers than the naysayers. That it is an oft ignored but no less legitimate Biblical command makes the decision all the easier.

Wake up Church. This isn’t about Mother Nature. It’s about the Father’s nature.


Blogger Peter T Chattaway said...

We can't "save" the planet any more than we can "destroy" it. We can make parts of it more habitable or less habitable, but that's about it.

And I would be very, very cautious about shackling Christianity or science to any particular political agenda -- because, yes, whether we like it or not, choosing any particular course of action with regard to the environment will be a deeply political act, and will have deep political ramifications.

(Obviously, Christians must love Creation, and so we must be pro-environment on some level even as we are pro-life on some level. But not everything that is done in the name of fighting abortion is good or wise, and not everything that is done in the name of "saving the planet" is good or wise, either.)

For that matter, I would be very, very cautious about shackling Christianity to any particular scientific paradigm, too.

11:20 PM  
Anonymous Daria said...

Brandon, I'm sending a great, big, happy hug to you in thanks for this post. = )
Rmember the CSCS days when people thought I was a raving "liberal-aka-ally-of-evil" for talking about "daily conservation tips" or "recycling"? ;-) ( >sigh< ) It's really nice to see more voices out there these days explaining that it's precisely we theologically conservative Christians who've the best reasons of all to care deeply and carefully for and about God's amazing creation...

3:04 AM  
Anonymous Andy said...

Hey Brandon,
For too long Christians have been known for 2 issues (pro-life and against gay marriage). I am pro-life, but I also love the creation of my Creator. How could I love Him and not His creation? It is also a matter of stewardship. We have been entrusted an incredible gift and responsibility, we need to treat it accordingly.

Some points:
1) Are we supposed to take Al Gore seriously? I laugh. He is a bitter man who knows little of real science. I trust him like I would with him creating the internet.

2) Also, I have heard that Mars is also experiencing a similar global warming. That could hardly be the fault of humans. Before we freak out, we better figure out how much of this is more of a naturalistic phenomenon.

3) Did you use the word blasphemy? Sounds rather liberal pharisee-istic. I would say that is reaching a bit. Nonetheless, I care deeply about our environment.

7:58 PM  
Anonymous nate said...

It seems strange to me to still consider this a "political issue," but whatever. Anything can be politicized if a large enough group protests loudly enough. The blueness of the sky or the concept of gravity could be "politicized," and then people could claim neutrality and enjoy complacency, because they can claim that all the players have an agenda. After awhile, it's impossible to distinguish that from the truth.

That said, the fact that Gore has ever held public office and made a failed bid for the White House has, in some people's minds, forever obscured his, by all reports that didn't come from Drudge, genuinely passionate drive for environmental concerns.

Whatever. I'll get nowhere on that score. All anybody has to say is "bias" and the conversation's over. But can we at least please, please, please put to bed that tired old canard about Al Gore inventing the internet? PLEASE?

9:39 AM  
Anonymous nate said...

And great post Brandon.

9:41 AM  
Blogger Brandon said...

But Peter, is making the planet less habitable any sort of option--either in terms of utilitarianism or ethics? I'm not shackling Christianity to any political agenda (I leave that to the Evangelicals and the Republicans)--but if they happen to run side by side for a while, so be it. I'm hardly arguing for an extremist environmental culture--heck, at this point I'd be happy if the majority of Christians simply admitted there was a problem in the first place.

Thanks for clearing up the Al Gore thing for me, Nate. I can't speak to Mars, Andy—I’ll have to ask the wife about that one. But I stand by my "blasphemy" comment--what would you call the misuse, abuse, or conscious destruction of anything that the Lord has created and called good?

1:49 PM  
Anonymous Chris Roseman said...


I agree completely with the first paragraph of this post except for humans being responsible for GW. I concede the earth is warming, but lets not through away our incandescent light bulbs and buy a Prius just yet.

First I want to address the point that nearly all scientist agree that there is a massive problem looming. Hogwash! Consensus has no place in science. Science is not a democracy, it deals with facts only. Those facts (meteorological data) have only been tracked for a few hundred years and can only be forecasted for the next 10 to 14 days. Making assertions based on this set of data would be completely acceptable. If you were to look at these facts you would see a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling every 4 decades or so. Current computer models, which some are using to make wild claims about the looming disaster, are in there infancy stages. Industry uses similar models to produce nuclear reactors and semiconductors. These items are created in a very small atmosphere and in a closed environment. Even so the process is not perfect and at times fails to produce a climate suitable for the desired results. The factors that must be taken into account are very limited compared to the atmosphere of the earth.

I can answer you question as to why Christians are skeptical of the reality of the environmental crisis in a biblical sense. The notion that humans can affect something such as the environment it to be as God. Ask Eve and Lucifer how that’s working out for them.

I will try to address more of your points as time permits

1:56 PM  
Anonymous nate said...

Those facts (meteorological data) have only been tracked for a few hundred years and can only be forecasted for the next 10 to 14 days.

The mere fact that I have to stop and explain the difference between CLIMATE and mere WEATHER tells me that you have not fully absorbed the facts of the issue. But go on, tell us more about science.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous nate said...

Since we are starting with the fundamentals, here are a couple of key concepts: Weather vs. Climate.

Now, those are Wikipedia articles, and I am sensitive to the (accurate) claim that anybody can say whatever they want on them, and sometimes they do. But for these most basic of definitions, I’m sure Wikipedia will suffice.

However, you might reflexively take issue with the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change article, but rest assured – because the topic (and page) is so controversial (thanks in part to people such as yourself) that everything written has been well sourced and linked to publications of a more scholarly nature. Feel free to check out the talk page.

While we’re at it, here is the definition of "consensus", which you seem to have also somehow misrepresented. It means (and yes I can’t believe I’m stopping to take the time to do this) a “majority of opinion”, and as such I’m confident that it most definitely has a place in science, (otherwise most of us would still be having our blood drained with leeches).


back to the real world...

2:45 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

Well there are some responses I no longer have to write...

2:59 PM  
Blogger Peter T Chattaway said...

But Peter, is making the planet less habitable any sort of option--either in terms of utilitarianism or ethics?

I said "parts of the planet", not "the planet". And as it happens, parts of the planet stand to become more habitable if the warming continues.

So, from a utilitarian point of view, yes, making parts of the planet less habitable is an option if it means making other parts of the planet more habitable. Ah, but who gets to decide which parts should be habitable and which parts shouldn't? That is where the politics kick in.

As for the ethical point of view, I'm not even sure what that would mean. It's not like God himself made the entire planet habitable for us. Some parts are more habitable, and some parts are less, and many parts have switched from one to the other at various points in the history of the human race. It is not unethical to single out a piece of land and decree that that shall be the town's garbage dump, for example. But it might be unethical to do that on someone else's property, or to do it in a way that sends toxic chemicals into the town's water supply, or to charge fees and raise taxes past a certain threshold to pay for it, or what have you. But again, this is where the politics kick in.

I'm not shackling Christianity to any political agenda . . .

Fair enough. I just don't want to see the environmental sciences shackled to any political agenda, either. Yet that is exactly what Al Gore and company are doing.

But I stand by my "blasphemy" comment--what would you call the misuse, abuse, or conscious destruction of anything that the Lord has created and called good?

"Conscious destruction"? Um, you mean like cutting down a tree to build a house? Or killing an animal to eat its meat? Given that Jesus himself proved his resurrection by killing dozens of fish and eating at least one, I think "blasphemy" might be a strong word for the conscious destruction of good things that God has made.

I admit, I may be running with the rhetoric in a direction that you did not intend. But that is precisely why we should try to avoid hyperbole.

11:34 PM  
Anonymous Chris Roseman said...


Please don’t feel obligated to talk down to me. I admit I am no meteorologist. Are you? I am assuming I am the only one involved in this discussion who has studied calculus, thermodynamics, kinetics, fluid mechanics, advanced physics, statistics and probability. All of these fields apply directly to the science of weather observation and prediction.

1:02 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

And don't forget advanced oceanography. Oh, those were the days...

1:06 PM  
Anonymous nate said...

What a strange and puzzling argument. You're absolutely right, Chris. Like you, I am no meteorologist, which is why it only baffles me that you wouldn’t give, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt to the professionally trained meteorologists (or, more accurately, once again, climatologists) who, as Brandon stated, have staked their reputations on their conclusions. You assert their expertise over yours and then in the very same breath undermine that expertise, (or, at the minimum, claim to have greater reason to doubt than they do.)

It’s not your lack of meteorological training that makes me feel obligated to talk down to you. Like I said, I don’t have any either. What makes me want to talk down to you, as if I am teaching a 5th grade class, is your confusion about how the academic/scientific fields work, with peer reviewed journals and accountability prized above all. You’ve made an unlikely conspiracy theory out of it, apparently, and as such I find it hard to take your ideas seriously.

Disproving theories is just as respected, and brings just as much attention and acclaim, if not more, as postulating theories. It’s pretty basic. If you faked cold fusion or sheep cloning, you will be found out because a thousand of your peers around the world are checking your data and gunning for their own published articles.

"I am assuming I am the only one involved in this discussion who has studied calculus, thermodynamics, kinetics, fluid mechanics, advanced physics, statistics and probability. All of these fields apply directly to the science of weather observation and prediction."

And I think it’s odd and a little telling that you would make such a broad assumption. It’s telling in that you think it so easily trumps anybody else who could possibly be reading this blog. Those courses are core fundamentals of any engineering degree, regardless of discipline, such as the BSME I am working towards right now. It’s a pretty popular educational path, actually, and this would make me hesitant to use it as my ace in the hole as quickly as you do.
But it’s not even the issue. I could care less about my chosen career field when it comes to this discussion. My (our) ability to evaluate an integral or define Newtonian fluids makes neither of us understand how science itself works anymore than any high schooler already should.

6:09 PM  
Blogger Grinth said...

What I'll never truly get over is how people are so resistant to "giving" up material aspects of their daily lives.

[i]"...but lets not through away our incandescent light bulbs and buy a Prius just yet"[/i]

Why not? I've driven in a prius and strangely it got my friend and I to where we needed to go just as well as all those SUV's out there.

Besides using less energy is a good thing whether you believe it will help the environment or not....that is unless you believe the earth has unlimited resources...

But besides all that when this debate comes up I like to reference something my favorite author, Tad Williams, said in an interview he gave.

Paraphrasing: He brings up the good point that in this whole debate one thing everyone agrees on is that the earth is warming up, be it a natural cycle or because of humans. If you agree that the earth is warming up why isn't any one discussing what precautions we are going to take to contain the destructive results of such warming? (i.e. in the past all we had to worry about was a few stick huts now there's just a bit more that stands to be destroyed lol)

7:21 PM  
Anonymous Paul said...

What strange conversations come up on blogs... It makes me wonder what the conversations would look and sound like if the conversants were in the same room.

But enough of my overanalytical psychology background showing it's virtually useless, but nonetheless interesting, face.

Al Gore's blatant hypocrisy aside, I think the issue that definitely needs to be faced in the "environmental issue" is the limited resources we are all vying for. When I say "we all" I include more and more people on the planet everyday. China and India's petroleum needs are growing at faster than exponential rates as is my gas bill.

The global warming issue is something we will all have to cope with regardless of the cause. If all of us overconsumers in the U.S. "went green" the overall environmental impact would be negligible and made up for by the new Chinese and Indian overconsumers in a year or so. More impact can be seen locally by the locals going green such as more stars in the California sky or a lighter shade of haze on the horizon but those are soon offset by the growing numbers of consumers.

Driving a car that gets 30+ miles per gallon is twice as good as driving one that gets 15- miles per gallon, not driving at all is even better but all but impossible in most of our lifestyles. That doesn't mean we should all move to NYC though.

I don't know what the answer is and I'm ashamed to admit that I'm often too busy driving to work and driving home to the family to care much about it. I am starting to feel the environmental pinch financially, so far I haven't had to scrimp on the resources I take for granted. Will I see that day? More importantly, WHEN will my kids see that day and what can I do to alleviate that now?

Taking care of the planet is as much a no-brainer as taking care of our bodies, cars, or homes. However, my house is a mess, as is my car and I won't talk about what I've ingested in the past 24 hours, although I did go for a run... on a treadmill. Doh!

There will be a reckoning for our recklessness, but whether we'll be swimming in melted icecaps, starving for fuel, or some other unforseeable vehicle of our reckoning is yet to be seen, but see it some shall.

As usual, I post more questions than answers, but in the spirit of the initial post, we Christians do have a responsibility to take care of the temples God has given us in home, body, and CAR?

Ornery today,

3:03 PM  
Anonymous Daria said... interesting, hearing different objections to things related to us being responsible in caring for our home (planet)--which of course isn't really *ours* in the sense of actually, permanently owning it.

I've heard of late, from various sources within the Christian world, this notion that we can't "destroy" the planet, and that we don't need to worry about the limits of its resources, etc.

How do you see this notion relating to Biblical eschatology? and to theology/Christian philosophy of sin? Specifically, how do you view things like Paul's description (Romans 8) that our (species') sin plunged the whole of creation into suffering? that all of creation is waiting for our final fulfillment of redemption, because that is also when *all* of creation, not just humans, will experience Redemption?

That strikes me as saying that our sin is a potent destructive force *throughout the entire universe*. >gulp<

Furthermore, Scripture--from the Books of Moses through Revelation--regarding "end times" makes certain things clear: human sin will bring defilement and destruction to the planet; this defilement will be to such a great degree that a good third of the Earth's water will be completely poisoned and a massive amount of our fellow creatures will die, for example, and the sun's rays will be scorching (as in, abnormally so)humans across the globe (hmm...maybe sounding a little closer to home these days?). The destruction and defilement described in Scripture as resulting from humans' stubborn refusal to live God's way and submit to Him in fact will render the planet beyond repair: note that God will *re-create* our planet in order for us to be able to live on Earth as He intended.

Finally, re: the notion of limited planetary resources vs unlimited: if one were to read through the Books of the Law (such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy), one would find a prescription for *sustainable* vs unsustainable living: God commands us to treat our croplands in certain ways to ensure that the soil is not depleted, for example; God commands us to hunt within certain limits (i.e., to "harvest" animals and animal "products" like eggs in a way that makes sure we don't wipe out a specific population of animals).

Never heard of these Scriptures? think this is all faddish "political" stuff? well, I rather enjoy pointing out to the faddish political movements around this stuff that their methods can be traced back to our Creator's statutes and instructions for us written down for us millenia ago in the *Bible*. = ) : ) yeah..."blink, blink." ;-)

It's not about "liberal" or "conservative", "modern", "post-modern," or whatever--it's about walking according to the timeless Way given us by the First and the Last...the One who "owns all the cattle on a thousand hills" and who "knows every bird in the mountains"--The One who, by the way, was so outraged that His people failed to give their land its Sabbath rest that He *kicked out* its human inhabitants and gave the land its Sabbaths, Himself (read it for yourself in various books of the Old Testament).

If our Creator says, "your sin has cursed the entire universe and is going to ruin the entire planet I've loaned you, and your self-centered, grabby, "I-want-it-now" attitude will leave you with nothing"...well, doesn't it seem a bit odd to talk back and argue that the Creator is incorrect?--that our planet's resources will surely not be exhausted, no matter how we live, and that our sin surely cannot destroy the planet?

So...if our sin has already cursed the universe, and if we already know human sin will render the planet uninhabitable at some point...why walk in a circumspect way toward our planet? As Brandon and Andy have mentioned, it should be love that guides us: love for our Creator that cannot help but overflow to the creation. Bound up with that is love for God that leads us to obey the instructions He gave us way back when about how to treat the Earth and our fellow creatures...and a Christian philosophy grounded in the Redemption leads us to walk out the good news of the Redemption in every domain of life: and, by heaven, that includes the good news that Jesus' death paid for all of nature to be redeemed!

Thanks be to God~ = )

1:48 AM  
Blogger Brandon said...

Daria, that was...extraordinary! Truly. What an amazing synopsis of everything I tried to say with but a dash of your success.

8:20 AM  
Anonymous Chris said...


Believe me when I say I have no confusion with this process.

"What makes me want to talk down to you, as if I am teaching a 5th grade class, is your confusion about how the academic/scientific fields work, with peer reviewed journals and accountability prized above all."

The confusions lies with the fact that scientist with peer reviewed research were preaching global cooling 30 years ago. Which prophet of impending danger am I to believe? The use of religious jargon is intentional, I truly believe global warming has become a religion. It is complete with everything you need for a religion:
Sins - pollution
indulgences -carbon credits
prophets - Al Gore
rituals - reduce reuse recycle requires belief where there is no fact and comes complete with it's own apocalypse. Even this reply will been seen as hearsay to most members of the church.

1:24 PM  
Anonymous nate said...

Well, okay. You have studied calculus.

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Chris said...


You didn't answer my question. Which one should I fear, global cooling or global warming? I need to know so I can begin preparing now.

1:13 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

Petty Officer Nate and Petty Officer Chris--do I need to put you both in opposite corners!?

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

Not at all. I would just like to address the facts surrounding this issue. Global warming will go the same way as West Nile, holes in the ozone, Y2K, acid rain and every other impending disaster the media has ginned up for the simple reason that it is not based on sound observable and measurable scientfic data.

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

I'm certain this will fall on deaf ears, but here we go. The International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society recently released a report by David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), Professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and Professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia). The short version of the report is that the change in climate is due to natural non-human factors. According to Dr. S. Fred Singer "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals." The report goes on further to say that the models used in support of the global warming theory do not take many factors into account. According to Dr. John Christy "We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” This is the point I tried to make early, but my feeble, pea sized and of course conservative mind was not able to convey this idea properly to such a scholarly audience.

The report goes on further to say "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly." But what is the cost? To the U.S. the cost would be measured in trillions of dollars, around the world the cost will be much higher. I would like to illustrate this idea with another environmental crusade that was backed by junk science and fueled by paranoia. Rachel Carson wrote a little known book entitled Silent Spring. Before this book was published this book in 1962, DDT had brought the worlds largest killer, malaria, to its knees. This miracle chemical reduced the global mortality rate of malaria from 192/100,000 to 7/100,000. Almost all of the deaths associated with malaria were children. With only a few observations and no scientific data to back it up, Rachel Carson and here book single handedly put 2/3 of the world’s population under the threat of malaria again by the subsequent banning of DDT. I don’t want to put forth the notion that Rachel Carson wanted the deaths of millions, but here crazy ideas were the root cause. Here idea that DDT did harm to bird populations has since been discounted, but even if they were true would you rather have a bird populations at there peak or human? This should be a very simple question.

This is what happens when rational thought is replaced with hyper-emotionalism. People become reactionary and do not follow an idea to its logical conclusion. It's not about the selfish loss of a few luxuries or how our environment might be affected; it's about how a group of people can be affected adversely due to the overreaction of another. For the people in South America and Africa the banning of DDT cost them their lives. Millions and millions have died and the number grows everyday. For the people of developing countries, the adaptation of this global warming nonsense, like Kyoto, will never allow them to industrialize and enjoy the same standard of living as we do in the U.S. Who knows how many lives will be cut short, lived out in misery and lost if they are forced to remain in 3rd world conditions all in the name of “saving the planet”

2:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus