|
By Benjamin Lee
 IS Canada in favour of climate change?
While most of us would adamantly deny it, we remain near the top in per-capita CO2 emissions, and our government seems more concerned with protecting the oil and gas industry and securing access to future mineral bonanzas in the far North than in protecting the environment.
Yes, we signed the Kyoto agreement, but it's been clear since Jean Chretien's tenure as prime minister that we have no plan to keep our commitment. Under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, we're actively resisting global efforts to combat climate change.
Indeed, our government's performance at the current UN conference in Copenhagen continues to earn Canada numerous 'Fossil of the Day' awards by NGOs monitoring the talks, putting us in the company of our friend and ally, Saudi Arabia.
One might ask: why should we care about such tongue-in-cheek reprimands from 'tree-huggers'? Canada's hardly the hottest place on earth. Besides, there are our economic interests at stake.
The Harper government has held firm to the notion that we should wait and see what the United States does, because doing otherwise would be disastrous for the economy. Additionally, it is true that green policies like a carbon tax will negatively affect our oil and gas sector, particularly the tar sands in Alberta.
Yet the petroleum industry is still only one sector. What is the picture for our overall economy? And what of the moral and ethical concerns if we do nothing, and climate change impacts are severe?
It may not cost the overall Canadian economy as much as our federal government seems to fear, if we pursue greener policies. In fact, there are areas where we should benefit.
As a large, resource-rich country, Canada will gain from exploiting our extensive capacity for renewable energy such as wind, tidal waves, small-scale hydro, and biofuels. In particular, using wind to generate electricity is already cheaper than using natural gas, and in some areas can cost less than 5 cents/kilowatt-hour, which makes it cost-competitive with coal.
With greater investment in cheap renewable energy, we can build on our existing strength as a low-cost electricity exporter to the U.S., as well as encouraging industries to locate in Canada, where they can benefit from low energy costs and a skilled workforce.
The economic benefits of 'going green' are already established in countries like Denmark and Germany, which are leaders in the wind turbine and solar cell industries respectively. The renewable energy sector employed nearly 280,000 people in Germany in 2008, with an annual growth rate above 10 percent.
China, which is often pilloried for its rising pollution, is embracing a greener future by becoming a world leader in solar cell manufacturing, wind power and battery technology.
When president Barack Obama spoke about his economic stimulus plan to a joint session of Congress in February, he set a goal to "double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years," asserting that "it is time for America to lead again."
Continue article >>
|
Yet the economic arguments aren't the most important ones. While I contend that 'greening' our economy will have positive impacts, I feel that we have a duty to act even if we incur significant costs. Why? Because ultimately, responding to climate change is an ethical and moral issue.
Our faith as Christians should include the understanding that we are stewards of God's creation. I was very moved when Sir John Houghton, a British atmospheric scientist who served as co-chair of the Scientific Working Group for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2002, spoke about how his faith made caring for the environment a duty.
In his words: "Christians and other religious people believe that we've been put on the earth to look after it. Creation is not just important to us, we believe also it is important to God and that the rest of creation has an importance of its own."
Moreover, environmental damage has the potential for causing drought, flooding and famines in parts of the world which are already the poorest and most at-risk. For example, millions of people in low-lying Bangladesh are threatened by flooding if ocean levels rise due to global warming. When we consider how we are called to care for the poor and afflicted in this world, we should not forget the potential harm from climate change.
We Canadians have a lot of potential for reducing our impact on the climate. After all, we are part of the wealthiest one-sixth of humanity that is responsible for 55 percent of CO2 emissions.
And while emissions from fast-rising countries like China and India continue to grow, the carbon footprint of each Canadian is still six times that of someone in China and eleven times an Indian.
Thus, the relative impact of reducing per-capita emissions in Canada is huge, simply because our current consumption is so high.
Sadly, while most of us agree that we have a duty to care for the environment, we often fail to act. Living in a wealthy, developed country, we find it hard to make needed sacrifices and limit our consumption.
Gandhi once said: "There is enough in the world for everybody's need, but not enough for anybody's greed." Of course, most of us don't feel particularly greedy about buying a new car, plasma TV or smartphone. But it remains true that we live in one of the most affluent societies in history.
Two millennia ago, in a poor and rustic society, Jesus starkly told a rich young man that he should sell all his possessions and give to the poor if he desired to truly live. We are clearly as uncomfortable with that idea now as that man was back then.
Can we nonetheless find the will to sacrifice on behalf of future generations, and help the poor who will suffer most from climate change? Let us embrace that challenge, as another generation of Canadians who will humbly follow in the footsteps of those who sacrificed and persevered through two World Wars and the Great Depression.
Let us not be dulled into thinking that our comfortable way of life is secure; we should be bold, and act on climate change.
Toronto-born Benjamin Lee earned a PhD in Applied Physics at Harvard. He works at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado.
December 17/2009
|
February 8, 2006
Leith Anderson remembers well his "aha" moment on global warming. It was three years ago, when the pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minn., treated his wife to a long vacation.
"My wife and I took an excursion to Antarctica, and for a period of a few weeks, we heard some of the things that were related to global warning as we visited sites," he recalls. "And it impressed me once more that God's gift of our earth is something we need to be effective stewards of."
And as an evangelical Christian, Anderson says, he believes global warning is also a social justice issue, because, he says, it is the poor who feel the brunt of famine or flooding that may come from climate changes.
"Climate changes in terms of famine, in terms of the inability to grow crops, in terms of the flooding of islands, most affects the poor," he says. "So we here in America probably can do many things to exempt ourselves from the immediate consequences, but the front edge of disaster is most going to affect those who have the least."
Anderson, who leads a mega-church of 5,000 worshippers, is one of 86 evangelical leaders who are challenging the Bush administration on global warming. Their "Evangelical Call to Action" argues that there's no real scientific debate about the dangers of climate change -- an assertion that many balk at. The group is calling on the government to act urgently, by, among other things, passing a federal law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Some of the signatories have star power, at least in evangelical circles. Among them are Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church and author of the blockbuster book, The Purpose Driven Life; Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College' David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; and Todd Bassett, national commander of the Salvation Army.
But the names of other evangelical heavyweights are conspicuously absent.
"I don't see James Dobson. Is there a more influential evangelican than James Dobson?" observes Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "I don't see Chuck Coleson. I don't see Franklin Graham. So these are obviously prominent evangelicans and I -- please don't in any way think that I am denigrating anyone who's on this list -- but it is not an exhaustive list of evangelical leaders, let's put it that way."
Land, along with Colson and Dobson, wrote a letter opposing the Evangelical Call to Action because, he says, there is not consensus about climate change among evangelicals. Land says the Bible makes clear that God expects human beings to take care of the earth. But "human beings come first in God's created order," he adds. "And that primacy must be given to human beings and for human betterment. If that means that other parts of nature take a back seat, well, then they take a back seat,
Land argues that slowing economic growth and development by overly strict environmental controls will harm human beings.
What this call to action shows is that Christian conservatives are anything but a monolith, says Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals. While issues like abortion and gay marriage may be central for some leaders, others are homing in on AIDS in Africa and poverty. And Cizik says, the 86 evangelical signatories are breaking another stereotype.
"Many view the (evangelical) movement as being the religious right, or lockstep supporters of the Bush administration," Cizik says. "It's not true. We support the administration on some issues and not others. On this issue I think you're beginning to see a variance with what we call business as usual at the White House."
Cizik, whose organization did not sign the letter, says the Bush administration is wearing blinkers about the dangers of climate change, and it's time that evangelicals use their considerable influence.
"When evangelicals speak, Republicans tend to listen, and frankly it's Republicans who need to get the message," says Cizik.
Of course, the White House's favorite evangelicals oppose the letter; and it's not at all clear that the White House will heed this call to action.
Since when is a proven hoax a moral issue?