There have been many reports lately about Climate Change in local, regional, national, and worldwide news. Some reports have been passing references, where an unusual weather event is attributed to climate change. Some reports have been in reference to agricultural practices, with aquifers drying up or different groups contending over water rights. Some reports are focused on animal life, with different species disappearing or migrating to new places due to heat or melting ice. And some reports are about businesses, such as major insurance carriers moving away from insuring homes in areas endangered by wildfires or flooding. Referring to climate change as a reality with real, every day consequences is a relatively new phenomenon in some circles. By and large most sources of information are no longer speaking of climate change as a “theory” or a fringe idea, but simply as a reality, even if the precise relationship between human activity and climate activity continues to be understood differently.
Years ago, I used to listen to a show on Iowa Public Radio with a bright radio host in conversation with a Political Science professor from one of the state universities. It was informative, but the show had one habit that bothered me to no end. They would offer, as a prize for whoever answered the week’s trivia question, a copy of The Worldwatch Institute’s annual State of the World publication. That, in itself, was fine, but they would speak of the publication dismissively, as being too alarmist, too pessimistic, and unrealistic. In fact, much of the language about climate change that is now taken for granted is precisely what the Worldwatch Institute said would result if we did not lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce wasteful practices. The biblical proverb is “no prophet is accepted in one’s own country,” but it is equally true that “no prophet is accepted in one’s own time.” What the Worldwatch Institute foresaw is largely what we now hear every day as news.
In our moment, there are some subtle nuances that I think we ought to be aware of. For example, we should be aware of the difference between prevention and reaction. We may be past the point of preventing humanly-exacerbated climate change. John Cobb is one of the few theologians willing to raise that possibility in his book, Is It Too Late (and he wrote that book initially in 1972!) Most of us hold to hopes that we can change our behaviors enough, and perhaps develop new technologies along the way, to lessen the effects of climate change enough to pull the world back from catastrophe. However, there is a shift taking place from preventing climate change to reacting to it. The decision by corporations to quit offering new home insurance in danger zones is one such reaction, as are building codes, raising seawalls, and requiring smart planting. It takes a fairly advanced economy for a country to take such reactionary measures. Poor island nations, like the ones described in this UN report, struggle against the twin challenges of climate change and poverty. I worry that climate change will ultimately cause us to lean into competition more than cooperation, “each nation for itself” thinking. We fall into competitive thinking over cooperative thinking when we feel threatened when things like water, crops, and energy are seen chiefly as matters of security. When that happens, we can expect that competitive penchant to kick in. As we move from trying to prevent climate change to reacting to climate change, we can expect our language to change from ‘world’ to ‘nation/state/community’ and from cooperation to competition.
Another nuance of climate change was highlighted in a story entitled “Chilly Times for U.S. Climate Movement?” that was originally published in “Boiling Point,” an email newsletter about climate change and the environment in California and the American West. The story pointed toward the different visions of environmental activists and clean energy businesses over some aspects of the energy policies of the Inflation Reduction Act. Traditional environmentalists wanted to focus on reducing fossil fuels entirely, while some market-friendly approaches to environmental change wanted to focus on market competition that would ultimately help green technologies and squeeze out fossil fuels. It is something of a question of trusting legislation or the market to address climate change more effectively. A similar tension lies between technologies that produce green energy at the cost of upsetting the balance of flora and fauna, and whether the point is to reduce fossil fuels or to make the earth greener in a wider sense. One large challenge facing environmentalists is whether we are anthropocentric in our approach or whether flora, fauna, even the earth itself have value beyond the degree to which they benefit humans.
When the psalmists say, “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it,” we hear a call to be environmentally invested in some way or another. We need each other in times like this, to bring clarity, encouragement, and some sense of community in days that can be frightening and disheartening. One benefit that you and I have is our trust that God’s love endures forever, as well as our joy of having one another as companions on this journey.
Mark of St. Mark
