On 23 June 1988, James Hansen, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute, made a speech. The ramifications of that speech were far greater than Hansen could have imagined. He warned Washington that the world was getting warmer, due to the build up of greenhouse gases. These gases would have consequences - an increased tendency to droughts and floods could be expected.[1] Seven years later, his worst fears were confirmed. After the creation at the United Nations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the efforts of over 2,500 scientists from around the world, it was determined that greenhouse gases were producing 'a discernible human effect on global climate'. This would have serious health consequences. These include changes in vector-borne and infectious diseases, adverse effects on food supplies resulting in malnutrition and death, population displacement as a result of rising sea levels, and rising rates of respiratory problems.[2] One study estimated that if no action is taken to control climate change, by the year 2020 around 700,000 avoidable deaths will occur annually as a result of additional exposure to atmospheric particulate matter.[3]
The western world agreed that something had to be done. A conference was held in Kyoto, Japan. The 2,200 official delegates and thousands of observers and lobbyists from 160 countries wrangled for ten days. A legally binding agreement was finally reached on 11 December 1998. This aimed to lower overall emissions in industrialised countries of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12. The three most important greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide - were to be 5.2% lower, when measured against 1990 values. Greenpeace called the agreement 'a tragedy and a farce that would do nothing to protect the world from dangerous climate change.' [4] The meeting failed to get even a voluntary commitment from developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet in the next decade their emissions - especially those in China - will rise steeply. But this did mark a real turning point in the attitudes of western government leaders to pollution.
The recent decision by the United States not to ratify the treaty, however, would have not entirely surprised world leaders. The major oil companies and car manufacturers hold huge political sway over Republicans in Congress. While Republicans were in the majority, ratification would always have been difficult. Even if they had ratified, the convention allowed an emissions trading system that meant rich countries, such as the US, could pay poorer ones to keep their emissions down rather than lowering their own.[5] The problem is that although Americans make up only 4% of the world's population, they emit a quarter of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. If the poorest countries are to climb out of absolute poverty, their energy consumption will have to increase, and so it is imperative that developed countries such as the US take action.
Thankfully, a compromise agreement was reached on 23 July 2001. It took six days.[6] Significant compromises to the original proposal were made, including softening penalties for failing to meet emission targets. Despite its weaknesses, it is a step in the right direction that should hopefully decrease global greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
Understanding stewardship
The earth is more than just a disposable utility. We live in a world that is created, redeemed and sustained by God. 'For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.' [7] Since it is God's world, it has intrinsic worth. As Christians we should see the environment in the context of the love and power of God.[8] Not only is God powerful enough to create the beautiful world we live in, he sacrificed his son for it too: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son'.[9]Although we are to have dominion over the earth,[10] we must take as our model, Christ's dominion over us - servant kingship. Genesis promotes the idea of stewardship of the earth. This means careful management and not selfish exploitation. It means a concern for both the present and the future.[11]
The Church of England Doctrine Commission said: 'To accept God as the Creator of all things implies that man's own creative activity should be in co-operation with the purposes of the Creator who has made all things good.' [12] So we should do our part in restoring what we have defaced or destroyed. We should pray that God might remind us of our duty in this area. The Lord's prayer says: 'your will be done on earth as it is in heaven'.[13] There is no suffering in Heaven yet the whole of creation suffers from sin.[14]
We know God's plan is to bring all things in heaven and earth under Christ.[15] This should fill us with renewed vigour for evangelism. The more people that become Christians, the more stewards there will be prepared to look after the world in the way God intended. Knowing, therefore, how to explain the gospel clearly and simply to our non-Christian friends should be a priority. We should also be praying for opportunities to talk about Christ, and confidence to make the most of them.
Just as debate about Jesus should be informed by the facts, so should public debate on the environment. We need to be armed with knowledge in order clearly to explain the issues involved in protecting God's good creation.
Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, said of the Kyoto situation: 'we find it hard to make short term sacrifices for long term benefit.' 16 His perspective was that developed countries should take action now to secure the world's future. As Christians we believe the world's future is in God's hands. But we must ensure that we are doing his will, and acting as good stewards of the earth.
