Energy, Resources and Religion
“So God made them all,and he was pleased with what he saw.” Genesis 1 v 25
Immediately post-creation, God was pleased with the Earth and man. What does God think about the Earth now, however?
What does he think of the way we behave? Is it akin to his attitude to people at the time of Noah? [“When the Lord saw how wicked everyone on Earth was and how evil their thoughts were all the time, he was sorry that he had ever made them and put them on Earth … ” (Genesis 6 v 5–6)]
Unfortunately (fortunately?) no-one really knows and it would be a folly to try to guess. However, I wonder what God would have to be proud of in his creation in modern times. Would he be proud of our exploitation of the Earth, of space, of our attitude to the poor? I doubt whether there is that much to be impressed with. Perhaps God even regrets giving us supreme Earthly power over the Earth and all the animals (Genesis 1 v 26–30).
Living in a Western society where we consume huge quantities of energy and other resources, it should be worrying that vast areas of the world have no running water (let alone worrying about minor man-made toxic residues being present therein), nor enough food for mere subsistence (and we deem it necessary to worry about man-made pesticide residues) and none of the luxuries that we deem to be necessary-imagine where we would be without the cooker, fridge, TV, radio, toilet …! Yet it scarcely impinges on our daily life! No doubt there will be scores of protests about that last comment — but just think, when did YOU last consider the plight of the 3rd World when it wasn’t thrust at you over the Television, telling you of the impending starvation of millions?
Indeed it is true that there is sufficient food to ensure that everyone in the world has enough to eat. Yet the mis-distribution of foodstocks is blatantly obvious when we look at the energy intake of Humans in the world. The average energy intake (daily) is 170MJ (a nice amount considering the human body needs a mere 7MJ). Yet the intake in Britain is a staggering 410MJ … and in the USA it is a mind-boggling 960MJ — over 125 times that biologically necessary. A further point is that these figures include babies, children and old people, all of whom require LESS energy to survive.
It is thus true that our society, and hence by implication WE have “… oppressed the poor and robbed them of their grain.” (Amos 5 v 11). There is, apparently, no altruism present in Modern society. Christians, by “definition”, should be highly altruistic and yet the Western world (ostensibly Christain), continues to grow in affluence regardless of the cost to itself or others. Consequently affluence in the West has reached a ridiculous level — we create all kinds of pollution by wasting precious resources of the Earth.
By burning fossil fuels, such as oil, the hydrocarbon chemicals are lost forever AND moreover create carbon dioxide, which as a Greenhouse Gas is threatening the future of the Earth itself. Squandering of these precious reserves seems to be the sole prerogative of Western Society, to the detriment of everyone.
It is impossible to raise the living standards of everyone to Westernised standards, because the Earth itself could not support such an onslaught to it’s ecosystem. At such high lifestyles as Westerners deem “natural” the World simply can not sustain the global population (it is arguable that the world can not really even support US living at that standard!). Hence, Developing Countries tend to be looked down upon by the West for creating pollution and problems. Yet this is a fallacy — we did not worry during our Industrialization era, we happily produced pollution. In London our answer to the London smogs was to build taller chimneys and send the pollution elsewhere (ie Scandanavia!).
Indeed it is, surely, OUR fault that the developing Countries are now producing pollution, since:
- We raised OUR living standards, so why should they be suppressed?
- We could give them the high technology that we possess to reduce the endemic pollution of a nation attempting industrialization.
The motive behind not doing them is pure unadulterated selfishness. We, having raised our living standards to ridiculous heights of affluence, seem reluctant to give up any of our “comforts” in life — which is necessary for the continual survival of Earth and the welfare of all. Somehow we as individuals will have to learn to do without much of what we expect as our right, rather than as the luxury that they are. The bright lights, well stocked shops, family car and other such amenities to which we have become accustomed will all have to go. Travel will become restricted and life will need to become simpler.
If such a change in life-style is enacted slowly, then perhaps paradoxically, we may become HAPPIER (just imagine no traffic jams, less traffic noise, less hustle and bustle, less of the “rat race”…)! Vigorous resistance to such inevitable change is only to be expected, but from an altruistic, Christian, moral or scientific standpoint such changes are justifiably necessary. The horrifying alternative to slow change is disaster, which would strike everyone a lot harder! Yet the mitigation of the disaster scenario (resulting from the cruel, ruthless attitude, which we currently have to our world neighbours) can only be affected by adopting an altruistic approach and shaking selfishness off.
In short a dopt a typical, idealised Christian attitude. No doubt the reader (and writer, if I am honest), will feel that such changes can not be enacted immediately. Attitudes need to change. Yet there are energy savings of roughly 35% (average) that are currently technically feasible in domestic, transport and industrial energy consuming sectors. These savings would in turn save fossil fuels.
In the case of food consumption, in the West, certainly consumption per capita can easily be decreased — or can it? Have we become too used to the “good-times”, that we have adopted the high-life standard of living? Perhaps akin to the inability of the “Upper Class” to live at the standards of the “Working Class”?
Our lifestyle is in reality a party, that is only temporary. This party to which only the Western World is invited and although it is claimed to be a party for all, anyone trying to join the party is vigorously resisted. We, in the Western World, feel threatened since the party will end sooner, the more partygoers there are, due to the food and drink running out (assuming that these are regarded as the essence of the party). Westerners act like the spoilt, self-indulgent rich imbeciles that we are, by trying, desperately to keep the party going …
Yet when the party eventually ends, it will be us that will be worse off; we will have that morning after feeling — and will undoubtably suffer for it! So, surely if we act purely selfishly (since we are best at that!), by considering a long-term rather than short-term scenario, we will end up acting out a Christian, altruistic approach (but for the wrong reasons!).
The Western world is surely approaching an unmitigated disaster, unless it does something to alleviate it’s oil-based, energy-guzzling society. If the Middle East stopped supplying oil to the West, Western Societies’ entire industrial and social framework would disintegrate. It wouldn’t matter one iota that Westerners had more tanks, submarines, industrialisation per capita than elsewhere — without oil the Western World stops.
This is what is behind the Gulf Task Force — rather than Desert Shield, OIL shield would be more appropriate and accurate!
Exploitation, the watchword of the West, needs to be rationalized. Eventually there will be no more oil, metals or any other resources. What will happen then? Individually and corporately we must rationalize our use of non-renewable resouces (even renewable resources are NOT expendable — we can not afford to cut down trees at the rate of an area the size of Britain every year in the Brazilian Amazonian Rain Forest alone! )
So we have seen that the Western World is solely responsible for the mismanagement of the Worlds Resources, since it has wrongfully claimed them as it’s own.
That brings us back to the original question of what would God think about us all. If some sort of divine absolution is expected at this point due to the comment by Jesus of: “You will always have poor people with you …” (Matthew 26 v 11), then I am afraid you will have to look elsewhere for a conscience-comforting comment.
We, the West, are acting like the Rich Man in the Parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16 v 19–31). We have (in World Terms, although perhaps not as far as Western Society is concerned) “dressed in the most expensive clothes and lived in great luxury every day” (v 19). Will the same fate happen to us as the Rich Man?
Some comfort may, I suppose, be drawn from: “It is harder for a Rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of the needle.” (Luke 18 v 25), as long as the qualifying statement, in verse 27, is considered: “What is impossible for man is possible for God.”
This, of course, surely, means that we, the rich, are relying even more upon the saving grace of God and luckily, for us: “It is nature always to have mercy” (Eucharistal Prayer in Methodist Service)
But do WE deserve it? Do WE, honestly deserve a place in heaven?
If we consider ourselves a part of the Western World, then alas I’m afraid that NO we don’t. Why do I say that, I hear you cry indignantly. Simply — we have been given Stewardship of the Earth, by God. Yet we squander the resources of Earth — as such we have been unfaithful to God. In the Parable of the Dishonest Steward (Luke 16 v 1–13), it is noted that: “Whoever is dishonest in small matters is dishonest in large ones.”
Would this, therefore, mean that since we have wasted Earth’s riches and that this wastefulness is inherent to our character, we are not fit for the great richness of heaven? That we would somehow by our endemic behaviour of creaming the best for ourselves off and leaving everyone else to sink or swim, we would wreck the perfectness of heaven if we were allowed to go there … and thus we would have to be sent to hell?!
Or perhaps it means, as is more comforting, we, as individuals, have to prove that we are actually worth a place in heaven …
Therefore, we should all consider how God would think of us as individuals, since corporately we are a disgrace to him. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to change our corporate behaviour and actually consider the poor of the world. If the world became more equal, we would not be guilty of: “trampling the poor of the world into the dust of the Earth” (Amos).