Dominic Lawson: Why I don't believe God is green
by DOMINIC LAWSON, on why man-made Global Warming is a load of nonsense
28th April 2007
DAILY MAIL
HUMANS BREATHE OUT CARBON DIOXIDE. SO, TO BE "GREEN", SHOULD WE ALL HOLD OUR BREATHS?
Pope Benedict said that 'we should all respect God's creation'
Please stand now for the hymn: Switch off, switch off for Jesus. You will not have heard the vicar say that in church this morning – but you soon might.
Last week the Church of England published what has been described as a set of "green commandments" in a booklet entitled How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take To Change A Christian? The booklet (£4.99 at all good Christian bookshops) is part of the CofE’s Shrinking The Footprint campaign.
That's right: the established Church is now fully signed up to the view that man-made CO2 emissions are destroying the planet and, therefore, humanity.
Meanwhile David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, travelled to the Vatican last Thursday and called on Pope Benedict to use his "global reach and influence that individual governments do not have" to fight the good fight against global warming.
The Pope responded that "we should all respect God’s creation".
Official Christian doctrine, however, remains rooted in the idea that the Earth was created for Man's benefit. As God told Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28 : "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air and over every living thing."
This is as far removed as can be from what we might describe as the green gospel, which regards birth control as the greatest of all moral obligations and which abhors the idea that Man should be master of the planet, instead of nature itself.
In fact, the new green gospel is far closer in its appeal to the primitive cults that preceded the monotheistic faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims.
It regards nature itself as a supreme deity whose wrath must be appeased. This, certainly, is the view of the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, who last year declared: "In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today, they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions."
The Church of England would, I suspect, bitterly resent this accusation. In its booklet it is not calling for human sacrifices.
Its suggestions are altogether more comfortable: we should use a toaster rather than a grill on our daily bread. We should holiday locally rather than abroad. We should use a car-sharing system for our trip to Sunday worship.
These might seem as clear as the Ten Commandments, but they are not. Suppose you can’t find anyone to share your car on the way to church. Should you stay at home and save the environment instead of your soul?
Is it actually morally better to holiday here and hand over your money to a comfortably-off Cornishman selling pub food at London prices, instead of taking your family on safari to Zimbabwe and putting some desperately needed hard currency into that wretched and suffering country?
Since the days of the missionaries, the Church of England has always had a deep concern for Africa, and rightly so. Indeed, Africa is at the heart of the whole issue of global warming. Despite what you might have read, global warming is, on balance, beneficial to the Northern Hemisphere. It will be a big boost for agricultural production as the corn belt moves northwards and old people will have less reason to fear the winters.
(It's worth reminding ourselves that carbon dioxide is not itself a form of pollution. Or, if it is, then we are all polluting the Earth simply by breathing (as we breathe out carbon dioxide), which would be a fantastically bleak philosophy by which to live.)
If there is to be a victim of global warming, it is most likely to be Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet your decision – having read and digested How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take To Change A Christian? – not to travel there will not save a single African life.
Even if you believe there is a direct link between CO2 emissions and global temperature, man-made emissions are a tiny part of the total, and carbon dioxide itself is only a small component within the full range of greenhouse gases.
Besides which, the plane will take off without you. Yes, you can argue that if hundreds of thousands take the same decision, those flights might be cancelled – but is boosting the British tourism industry at the expense of those in less wealthy countries actually a virtuous act, however well-meaning the intentions?
Recently, Tesco announced that as part of its plan to be a responsible corporate citizen and save the planet, it had dramatically cut the amount of fresh produce it would fly in from Africa, and buy more locally. Do you think the Africans were grateful?
What guidance might we expect on this from the Church of England? Perhaps we should consult the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, who chairs the bishops’ panel on the environment.
Last July, Dr Chartres declared that flying was ‘a symptom of sin’. That made the headlines.
Unfortunately for this most pompous of prelates, what also made the headlines a few months earlier was that he had deserted his flock in Holy Week so that he and his wife could enjoy a free ocean-liner cruise for which other holidaymakers would have paid about £7,000.
(To be fair to the Bishop, he was giving them the benefits of his views, as "a guest lecturer", on the rise and fall of Egypt, Rome and Carthage.)
Even though Dr Chartres had left his parishioners during the most important week in the Christian calendar, at least, say his defenders, he wasn’t using a plane to get away. I suggest they consult green campaign group Climate Care, which points out that "a cruise liner such as Queen Mary 2 emits 0.43kg of CO2 per passenger mile, compared with 0.257kg for a long-haul flight (even allowing for the further damage of emissions being produced in the upper atmosphere). It is far greener to fly than cruise."
So the Bishop looks like either a hypocrite or a fool – or quite possibly both.
This is not an argument against the Church of England using its authority to protect the environment. I can't help feeling, however, that it is behaving a little bit like the Conservative Party – after all, it used to be described as "the Conservative Party at prayer".
Just as the Tories have jumped on the issue of global warming as a means to impress younger voters, so the Church of England is in danger of becoming an ideological fashion victim – and thus end up looking ridiculous.
Above all, I worry that it is encouraging people into forms of ritual – using the toaster instead of the grill, switching off the light in the porch – which may do no good to anyone, but which allow the performer to imagine that by acting in this way he or she has become a better person.
This, after all, was exactly the objection that Jesus had to the Pharisees.
dailymail.co.uk
by DOMINIC LAWSON, on why man-made Global Warming is a load of nonsense
28th April 2007
DAILY MAIL
HUMANS BREATHE OUT CARBON DIOXIDE. SO, TO BE "GREEN", SHOULD WE ALL HOLD OUR BREATHS?
Pope Benedict said that 'we should all respect God's creation'
Please stand now for the hymn: Switch off, switch off for Jesus. You will not have heard the vicar say that in church this morning – but you soon might.
Last week the Church of England published what has been described as a set of "green commandments" in a booklet entitled How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take To Change A Christian? The booklet (£4.99 at all good Christian bookshops) is part of the CofE’s Shrinking The Footprint campaign.
That's right: the established Church is now fully signed up to the view that man-made CO2 emissions are destroying the planet and, therefore, humanity.
Meanwhile David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, travelled to the Vatican last Thursday and called on Pope Benedict to use his "global reach and influence that individual governments do not have" to fight the good fight against global warming.
The Pope responded that "we should all respect God’s creation".
Official Christian doctrine, however, remains rooted in the idea that the Earth was created for Man's benefit. As God told Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28 : "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air and over every living thing."
This is as far removed as can be from what we might describe as the green gospel, which regards birth control as the greatest of all moral obligations and which abhors the idea that Man should be master of the planet, instead of nature itself.
In fact, the new green gospel is far closer in its appeal to the primitive cults that preceded the monotheistic faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims.
It regards nature itself as a supreme deity whose wrath must be appeased. This, certainly, is the view of the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, who last year declared: "In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today, they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions."
The Church of England would, I suspect, bitterly resent this accusation. In its booklet it is not calling for human sacrifices.
Its suggestions are altogether more comfortable: we should use a toaster rather than a grill on our daily bread. We should holiday locally rather than abroad. We should use a car-sharing system for our trip to Sunday worship.
These might seem as clear as the Ten Commandments, but they are not. Suppose you can’t find anyone to share your car on the way to church. Should you stay at home and save the environment instead of your soul?
Is it actually morally better to holiday here and hand over your money to a comfortably-off Cornishman selling pub food at London prices, instead of taking your family on safari to Zimbabwe and putting some desperately needed hard currency into that wretched and suffering country?
Since the days of the missionaries, the Church of England has always had a deep concern for Africa, and rightly so. Indeed, Africa is at the heart of the whole issue of global warming. Despite what you might have read, global warming is, on balance, beneficial to the Northern Hemisphere. It will be a big boost for agricultural production as the corn belt moves northwards and old people will have less reason to fear the winters.
(It's worth reminding ourselves that carbon dioxide is not itself a form of pollution. Or, if it is, then we are all polluting the Earth simply by breathing (as we breathe out carbon dioxide), which would be a fantastically bleak philosophy by which to live.)
If there is to be a victim of global warming, it is most likely to be Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet your decision – having read and digested How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take To Change A Christian? – not to travel there will not save a single African life.
Even if you believe there is a direct link between CO2 emissions and global temperature, man-made emissions are a tiny part of the total, and carbon dioxide itself is only a small component within the full range of greenhouse gases.
Besides which, the plane will take off without you. Yes, you can argue that if hundreds of thousands take the same decision, those flights might be cancelled – but is boosting the British tourism industry at the expense of those in less wealthy countries actually a virtuous act, however well-meaning the intentions?
Recently, Tesco announced that as part of its plan to be a responsible corporate citizen and save the planet, it had dramatically cut the amount of fresh produce it would fly in from Africa, and buy more locally. Do you think the Africans were grateful?
What guidance might we expect on this from the Church of England? Perhaps we should consult the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, who chairs the bishops’ panel on the environment.
Last July, Dr Chartres declared that flying was ‘a symptom of sin’. That made the headlines.
Unfortunately for this most pompous of prelates, what also made the headlines a few months earlier was that he had deserted his flock in Holy Week so that he and his wife could enjoy a free ocean-liner cruise for which other holidaymakers would have paid about £7,000.
(To be fair to the Bishop, he was giving them the benefits of his views, as "a guest lecturer", on the rise and fall of Egypt, Rome and Carthage.)
Even though Dr Chartres had left his parishioners during the most important week in the Christian calendar, at least, say his defenders, he wasn’t using a plane to get away. I suggest they consult green campaign group Climate Care, which points out that "a cruise liner such as Queen Mary 2 emits 0.43kg of CO2 per passenger mile, compared with 0.257kg for a long-haul flight (even allowing for the further damage of emissions being produced in the upper atmosphere). It is far greener to fly than cruise."
So the Bishop looks like either a hypocrite or a fool – or quite possibly both.
This is not an argument against the Church of England using its authority to protect the environment. I can't help feeling, however, that it is behaving a little bit like the Conservative Party – after all, it used to be described as "the Conservative Party at prayer".
Just as the Tories have jumped on the issue of global warming as a means to impress younger voters, so the Church of England is in danger of becoming an ideological fashion victim – and thus end up looking ridiculous.
Above all, I worry that it is encouraging people into forms of ritual – using the toaster instead of the grill, switching off the light in the porch – which may do no good to anyone, but which allow the performer to imagine that by acting in this way he or she has become a better person.
This, after all, was exactly the objection that Jesus had to the Pharisees.
dailymail.co.uk
Last edited: