Less

My friend Matt and I were discussing the paradox of how even modern measures to reduce waste can have harmful effects in excess of the that of the garbage they aim to decrease. Not only can recycling programmes be harmful through the use of highly toxic chemicals or massive amounts of energy, so too can they reinforce the modern idea that we can simply use and dispose. And that’s something we’ve become quite good at: we use, then when we’re done, we throw away. And then we do it again. And again. And again, ad infinitum. We’re quite highly trained.

What? Am I saying that recycling is a bad thing? I’ll bet you didn’t expect that. But, if the simple act of recycling absolves our consciences of the guilt of over-consumption and unnecessary waste creation, then indeed, in that way recycling is a bad thing and could be causing more harm than good. That’s tipping the scales even before one takes into account those nasty chemicals and all that energy.

I’m not suggesting we stop recycling, because it’s certainly not all bad. What I’m suggesting is that we stop wasting. We need to stop thinking that our waste is someone else’s problem, and that they’ve got it covered. Because they don’t.

For starters, let’s stop buying those convenience foods that are packaged six times over. And how’s about we try not to choose items whose packaging will outlast them by decades or centuries. We could also do well to spend a few dollars more on things made with quality, things that will not soon require replacing.

Or better yet would be to simply buy less, but that’s maybe pushing things too far.

Change

I'm going to start a short series on environmental stewardship. For those entirely uninterested, please read; this is for you. I promise I won't prolong your tedium too much.

Let’s begin by being honest with each other: when thinking about such massive issues as climate change or world poverty, it’s very easy to become discouraged. It’s easy to have no clue how an individual can make a difference, however much one would want to. Swimming against the current is particularly difficult to do, especially when the proverbial current is the entirety of the culture in which we live. And what’s the point, if nothing less than a sea change of culture will make any difference? Perhaps the beast we now ride is too elephantine to steer clear of the destruction toward which we are headed. Maybe the masses will require comprehensive quantitative evidence, the type that will only be compiled after it is too late. Or could it be that such evidence exists and we are too hexed by comfort and security to see that the legacy of our overexploitation will be an intractable curse on the next generation and all who follow?

Some still refute the apparent scientific consensus on the contribution of human activities to global warming, and it could be true that our part is less influential than others would suggest. But I’d like to invite you to come here and observe a distribution of emergency food relief to poor subsistence farmers whose crops have been wiped out by relentless rains, and who have been eating dirt to feel their stomachs full. Or afterward to watch the old widow who didn’t receive anything, who dives to the ground for the five beans emptied from a colleague’s shoe. She was one of the lucky (?) ones who survived last year’s drought. These aren’t normal conditions, friends.

I don’t write this from the security of philanthropic righteousness or environmental innocence; I am guilty just the same. I merely invite you to see, to experience, and then to return to Disneyworld. Where every space is climate-controlled.

Climate Change

Isn't this issue decided upon yet? Seriously. How can we still be so arrogant and senseless to think that the prohibition of one man being able to marry another man is more important than dealing with the fact that the world's rich- including Christians- are contributing to the killing tens of thousands of poor people every single day due to our insatiable consumption?

I'm not sorry for taking this time to rant, because the entire reason why I am in Burundi, surrounded by undignified poverty, is to help mitigate the effects of changing weather patterns and otherwise deteriorating environmental conditions, caused in large part by global warming. Last year in Burundi, thousands and thousands of people died of starvation when the country was struck by drought in the main producing regions. And so we prayed for rain. This year, we're getting rain: relentless rain that has so far destroyed 50-80% of the country's crops. Hundreds of people have died hunger-related deaths already, and the food shortage has only just begun. In the West, we have the resources to adapt, but here that is not the case. Thus, the poor majority are the ones who suffer the most when the rich minority can't curb their consumption.

The reason I rant is because Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian ministry with widespread following, has written a formal letter to the National Evangelical Association attacking their recent stance, a stance which united tens of millions of (American) Christians in agreement that action to counter global warming must be taken soon, and that it's a major moral issue of our time. What follows is a statement from Dobson's letter, and a rebuttal posted on the blog of Jim Wallace, the leader of Sojourners, a major non-partisan movement founded on social justice for home and abroad.

Dobson:

"More importantly, we have observed that Cizik [of the NEA] and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."

He goes on to suggest, “he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.”

Wallis:

That is indeed the key criticism, and the foundation for the real debate. Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of 3 billion of God’s children living on less than $2 per day? And isn’t the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right - climate change is real, is caused substantially by human activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths - then isn’t that also a great moral issue? Could global warming actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God’s creation?

Or, are the only really "great moral issues" those concerning abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence? I happen to believe that the sanctity of life, the health of marriages, and teaching sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues, and Dobson says they are.

And further,

A statement last year by the Evangelical Climate Initiative, signed by 86 national evangelical leaders, including 39 Christian college presidents, noted that “we are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity's responsibility to address it.”

mcc.org

Hey! Sorry this isn't much of a post, but you should all check out mcc.org for March's feature page on MCC's involvements in Burundi, which includes the feature documentary video on Help Channel Burundi and our Food-For-Work reforestation projects "Burundi: Trees of Hope". Click the title to go there.