Compassionate environmentalism
While older evangelicals tend to emphasize the problems of gay marriage, many younger evangelicals concentrate more on poverty-fighting and environmental issues – and that’s fine. But what happens when evangelicals understand that helping the poor and aggressively fighting global warming are at loggerheads?
I first became aware of the divide between concern for the poor and radical environmentalism in Austin a decade ago. The city went all out to protect a species of cave spiders but scrimped on police protection in poorer sections – and one result was that a deaf woman died in a gang shooting near my home. Sure, in theory we can protect both cave spiders and humans, but in reality needs and wants compete for a limited pool of money.
That’s the way it is at the intersection of poverty-fighting and environmental concerns. One of the many justifications Al Gore offers for the $150 billion annual price tag of the Kyoto accords is that global warming will increase the number of malaria-carrying mosquitoes. But Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg and others say that global warming will increase the number of people at risk for malaria by only three percent – and that with an annual expenditure of only $3 billion on health and economic measures, malaria infections could be cut by 50% over the next eight years.
Lomborg’s global priority list emphasizes reducing the incidence of disease, malnutrition, poor sanitation and bad water. He argues in Cool It (Knopf, 2007) that the high economic costs of emissions-cutting proposals will deliver meager global benefits compared to what such funds could accomplish elsewhere. Some might argue that money saved by not going to Kyoto extremes would not go to help the poor, but our goal then should be work harder politically and charitably, not to accede to waste.
“Creation care” is important. God calls us to be stewards and gardeners, caring for oxen in the ditch and relishing lilies. But the Bible also teaches that human beings, created in God’s image, are the most valuable resource on earth.













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top32 Comments to “Compassionate environmentalism”
If we found a way to give every single person on the planet a middle-class quality of life, at the cost of the earth exploding in ten years, would it be the right thing to do? What if it exploded in fifty years? A hundred?
How many years of comfort would it take to justify annihilation?
Report comment to moderator
While older evangelicals tend to emphasize the problems of gay marriage, many younger evangelicals concentrate more on poverty-fighting and environmental issues
That’s because the younger ones have to live here a long time. The problems of gay marriage are imagined. The problems with the environment are right outside your front door.
Report comment to moderator
The city went all out to protect a species of cave spiders but scrimped on police protection in poorer sections – and one result was that a deaf woman died in a gang shooting near my home. Sure, in theory we can protect both cave spiders and humans, but in reality needs and wants compete for a limited pool of money.
You’re taking two extreme cases as if they were typical and thereby greatly exaggerating the purported conflict.
In fact, protecting the environment and giving aid to the poor do not have to conflict and most often they don’t. But you can always go out and find a case or two where overzealous people went beyond reason.
Report comment to moderator
re 2 – Perhaps older evangelicals have been around on the planet long enough to see the downside of “gay-unions” and see it as a more real problem than global warming.
You say the problems of gay marriage are imagined. I’m sure you are not speaking for me and the other 5.9999 billion people on the planet. Just yourself.
When I walk out my front-door, the only environmental problems I see are crab-grass. Pass the herbicide please.
Report comment to moderator
re 1 – Praytell, Stephen; how will NOT spending money on the environment cause this world to explode?
Answer this question, please. What temperature is right and optimal for the Earth? Why couldn’t it be an average of two degrees warmer than right now?
Please don’t eschew the “Greenland” is melting arguement. It needs to melt a little more to be as green as when it was named.
Report comment to moderator
Mickel, I posted a thought experiment in response to Olasky’s “prioritize the people” point. It engages one in a philosophical discussion of ethics and presumes nothing about global warming, right temperatures, or Greenland.
Report comment to moderator
It’s certainly absured to refuse to waterboard trees in the name of protecting them from torture.
Report comment to moderator
Particularly since waterboarding a tree would be the equivalent of waterspleening a human.
Report comment to moderator
Environment vs. people is a false dilemma.
By the way, I love global warming!
For all you doubters out there: global warming is happening. However, the argument that global warming is caused by humans is dubious. Even so, global warming will bring so many great benefits. More land near the poles will become arable. More humidity will enter the atmosphere. Rains will increase in the drought stricken parts of the world. The weather will become more temperate.
Before all that ice froze on the poles, there were forests and all sorts of greenery there. Now we are emerging from that ice age. Let the land bring forth vegetation and trees bearing fruit after their kinds, instead of year-round ice and snow!
Report comment to moderator
Re: caring for the poor vs environmentalism
I suppose we could take any two things and connect them in some way. It’s like playing “Six Degrees of Separation with Kevin Bacon”. The connection Olasky makes is weak at best.
Second, what’s this “radical environmentalism” quip? Can conservatives and evangelicals not use the word “environmentalism” without attaching the pejorative “radical” to it? It taints his entire argument.
If one is concerned about the connection between the poor and the environment, one should look just over the border from Texas into Mexico, where American companies have set up shop and are freely polluting the water, ground, and air. Now that is something worth getting riled up about.
Report comment to moderator
But what happens when evangelicals understand that helping the poor and aggressively fighting [OTHER COUNTRIES] are at loggerheads?
oh wait – they never do understand that.
Report comment to moderator
cave spiders vs protecting deaf women. Now there’s a false dilemma.
Report comment to moderator
No, that’s more of a strawman.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent post, A (#9)!
Report comment to moderator
Dear Sir
You intimate that concern about global warming is the same as radical environmentalism. I thought Al Bore cornered the emotionalism/exaggeration market but I guess I was wrong. Your journalism is usually much better than this. Secondly you quote Lomborg as saying people at risk for malaria will increase by only three percent. In Africa (where I live) malaria kills more people than any other disease (AIDS,TB etc)…over 1 million a year, most of these children. 3% = 30 000 more deaths per year. Only 30 000. But I guess African lives are worth a small fraction than American or Danish lives. I wonder if that is true for God’s economy. http://www.malarianomore.org….use it, don’t use it….
Report comment to moderator
I am a young christian conservative who is very concerned about the poor and the enviroment but the key is that unlike Gore many of us feel that the answers do not lie in Bogus treaties or government spending but in the private markets and technology. Today consumers are demanding more sustainable products and I think business is responding. We can now drill for oil and leave almost no footprint and companies like Wal-Mart are pushing suppliers to become more sustainable. The answer to this problem is free markets and technology not government.
Report comment to moderator
#15: It was someone from Hillary Clinton’s campaign who said the lives of Africans aren’t worth as much as others. Contact her to complain (she might even be counting on your vote?).
Report comment to moderator
Hillary Clinton and fellow New York Senator Chuck Schumer received thousands of dollars in campaign cash from Nobel prize-winning scientist James Watson, while requesting a $900,000 earmark for his Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
According to federal filing reports, earlier this year Watson donated $70,000 to Demo candidates, Schumer and Clinton among them, just days before the earmark was submitted.
Watson, who co-discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, recently retired after drawing public ire for telling the London Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.”
Amid the all-too-predictable firestorm that followed, the 79-year-old Watson was cowed into apologizing for his remarks. Still, those remarks are likely to kill the earmark.
Report comment to moderator
[...] Olasky has an article on World Magazine’s web site called “Compassionate Environmentalism.” Here are some quotes: While older evangelicals tend to emphasize the problems of gay [...]
Report comment to moderator
Mickel (#4) said: When I walk out my front-door, the only environmental problems I see are crab-grass. Pass the herbicide please.
Do you really believe this? Don’t take the blessings of the environmental movement for granted. In America, you have relatively clean air and clean water. It would not be so if not for the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. I live in a second-world city, where people have shorter lives due to dirty air and heavy metals in the drinking water.
The Bulldoze-the-Everglades-and-Kill-the-Whales side of conservatism is no more Biblical than the Worship-the-Earth-Goddess-and-Hug-a-Tree side of the environmentalist movement.
Report comment to moderator
Do you have links to where conservatives have said we should bulldoze the Everglades and kill the whales, #20, or are you just spouting more man-made global warming?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast (#21).
No, I cannot point to a link that says we should “bulldoze the Everglades or kill the whales,” but you and I both know there is an abundance of conservatives who ridicule environmentalist who want to protect swamps and mock those who would “save the whales.”
I was responding specifically to the statement about crabgrass and herbicide. I said nothing about global warming, an issue on which I am a fence-rider. (I have more background to evaluate arguments for and against human-induced global warming than most people, but am not yet convinced either way).
Report comment to moderator
Arrrrrgh. I miss the old “preview” button on WMB. I meant “environmentalists who want to protect swamps” not “environmentalist who want to protect swamps.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes, the earth is in a warming trend. No, scientists have not proven that humans have contributed anything significant to this cycle of warming.
Al Gore’s theory of catastrophic man-induced global warming is falling apart. A judge recently ruled against the crockumentary in response to teachers propagandizing their students with a film that uses scare tactics, false information, and no opposing viewpoints to show how flimsy Mr. Gore’s arguments really are.
Yes, Christians should care for the creation and be good stewards of the environment, but this has nothing to do with global warming. Yes, we should continue to work towards cleaner air and cleaner water and work to conserve forests and wildlife.
But we cannot put the environment before human life.
And pumping enormous amounts of money into government programs will do nothing but cripple economies and produce wasteful spending with little or no results.
Report comment to moderator
#24 is a well-written message that helps makes the world safer for cliches, stereotypes, and generalizations, though they have never been much in danger.
Report comment to moderator
#9: Even so, global warming will bring so many great benefits.
Please stop, the ignorance is hurting my ears.
Report comment to moderator
#17, What happened in Rwanda in 1994, don’t Google it!
I am South African, and view US elections with as much amusement as I would The Muppet Show, but obviously take the Muppets much seriously. Btw, imagine if hillary wins 2 terms, potentially 2 families running your country for 28 years, can you see the irony?
#26 To who? Come stay in Africa or maybe head out to Bangladesh. Ignorance is hurting my ears too.
Report comment to moderator
Randyg78 (#24) wrote: pumping enormous amounts of money into government programs will do nothing but cripple economies and produce wasteful spending with little or no results.
If you are talking about Kyoto, I’ll have to agree.
However, I view environmental regulation in general as necessary as a restraint on sin. Don’t take clean air and clean water for granted. You would not have them aside from government regulation.
Report comment to moderator
#28
Kevin makes a good point. Free enterprise has many strengths. However, there is little profit to be made in serving the greater good. That’s why government exist: to carry out those tasks that are necessary even though they don’t make a profit for some individual or corporate entity.
Government often has many flaws. Nevertheless, the problem doesn’t go away: how to meet needs that are not met by the “invisible hand.”
Report comment to moderator
The city went all out to protect a species of cave spiders but scrimped on police protection in poorer sections – and one result was that a deaf woman died in a gang shooting near my home.
To blame this on “radical environmentalism” is ridiculous and outrageous. I’m pretty sure the gang shooting wasn’t a dispute over the extent and causes of global warming.
Report comment to moderator
At the very least, we should be able to train spiders to kill on command. Where are the mad scientists when we need them? Gone to global warming, every one.
Report comment to moderator
I like #31….
Ahem. Yes, well. As a young conservative, I’m perfectly happy to recycle and eat real (local) food, but often suspect it’s not worth the hidden costs… like the nuisance of dealing with our county recycling people, who are impractical as anyone in the Ivory Tower.
“The Environment” is a lovely responsibility, but makes a bad god. I theorize if we practice living virtuously, practice being properly human, a lot of things will start to straighten out–the Environment and family life and sane government among them.
Now you can all argue what “being human” looks like. When you figure it out, let me know.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!