Summer 2005
Download Summer 2005 issue (PDF, 1.6MB)Table of Contents
From the Publisher's DeskThe Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists on the Critical Importance of Conserving Endangered Species
Speaking Truth to Power by Dorothy Boorse
Testimony Before the House Resources Committee by Dorothy Boorse
Progress in Senate on Addressing Global Warming by Jim Ball
Interview with Sir John Houghton on the Mall in Washington, DC.
Rejoicing For a Rediscovered Creature by Benjamin E. Leese
A Noah Alliance for God's Creatures by Suellen Lowry
From the Publisher's Desk
Dear Friends,
Our theme for this issue, "Happenings on the Hill," is a little misleading in one sense. The articles inside are dealing with our care for God's other creatures, especially those that are endangered, as well as climate change (which is of course a major threat to God's other creatures as well as to human beings). While there may be a bunch of donkeys and elephants on the Hill, and sometimes things get a little wild and woolly up there, and while there may be a lot of hot air dispelled in the ornate chambers of the Capitol building, I don't know if any endangered creatures live on the Hill, and geographically the impacts of climate change won't impact the area that much.
But as you well know, what happens on this little plot of land has serious consequences for God's other creatures and the response of the world to climate change. From the perspective of those impacted, it seems unreal that this should be the case.
While we should not become myopic in thinking that it all revolves around Washington - the actual care of creation takes place outside of the Hill - decisions are made there that significantly impact how God's creation will be cared for. It isn't everything. But it's important.
That's why Dorothy Boorse was on the Hill testifying this summer on behalf of protecting God's endangered creatures. Her testimony and her reflections about it are inside.
That's why evangelical scientists collectively are once again raising their voices in a thoughtful statement calling for the government not to weaken protections for endangered species.
That's why a new coalition has been formed of evangelical Christians and Jews to protect God's endangered creatures by protecting the laws that protect them called the Noah Alliance. Details are inside.
That's why Sir John Houghton traveled from Whales to Washington in March to talk to evangelical leaders and came back in July to testify before the Senate Energy Committee. An interview by EEN with Sir John on The Mall in DC is provided in this issue.
That's why we're providing an update on some important - but admittedly incremental - progress on climate change in the Senate this summer.
Whether we like it or not, "happenings on the Hill" have an impact on God's creation. What goes on inside the beltway can make a significant difference in the real world. In this issue we highlight that Christians are paying attention and making a difference.
In Christ,
Jim Ball
The Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists on the Critical Importance of Conserving Endangered Species
We are scientists and scholars in the scientific and ethical professional community who also are evangelical Christians. We come from diverse denominational and independent church traditions across the full evangelical spectrum--from Anabaptist to Baptist, Pentecostal to Presbyterian, Anglican to Lutheran, Methodist to Reformed. It is our privilege to engage in science and scholarship as our vocation, helping us and others understand, and care for, God's creation worldwide. We are committed scholars both of creation and the Scriptures, and are dedicated to applying what we learn to living rightly on earth.
As evangelical scientists and ethicists we are in accord--based upon scientific knowledge of the workings of God's creation and upon biblical and religious beliefs--on the critical importance and human responsibility to care for the earth's climate system, earth's abundant life and variety, the great lineages of earth's living creatures, and the vitality of ecosystems for the well-being and community of all life.
The beauty, joy, and health of human life on earth depend deeply upon the wide variety and great richness of plant and animal life God has provided. This abundant life brings immense and continuous praise to God (Psalm 148), leaving all people without excuse about knowing God's divinity and everlasting power (Romans 120). Beholding God's creatures and the whole creation supports our spiritual well-being, while living in a world that sustains creation's marvelous variety protects our physical welfare.
However, as evangelical Christians and scientists in our time, we see a most profound threat to the integrity of God's creation in the destruction of endangered species and their God-given habitats. Among scriptural teachings, we believe the biblical story of Noah is a primary one. The story of Noah teaches us the meaning of faithfulness to God's commands, the overarching importance of maintaining the lineages of God's creatures, the vital necessity and stewardly duty to conserve endangered species and their habitats, and God's faithfulness in preserving faithful stewards of God's creation.
Noah was the first human being entrusted with endangered species. Noah was faithful to God's call to preserve the creatures together with his faithful human family--and followed through by returning the creatures he saved to a flourishing earth and diverse habitats that allowed them once again to be fruitful and multiply through succeeding generations (Genesis 8:17). Endangered species were saved by Noah at great cost of time, materials, and reputation. God cleansed the earth of the unfaithful and disobedient and yet did not leave things uncertain for faithful Noah, nor for the ongoing lineages of people and living creatures that were saved, by repeatedly making an everlasting covenant with all life on earth (Genesis 8-9). As a consequence of Noah's faithfulness, people and God's creatures, and the vital ecosystems upon which they depend, flourished on the earth (Genesis 1:22). The privilege and responsibility of human beings to be good stewards of creation was refreshed and renewed (Psalm 8). We believe from our deepest knowledge and convictions that we have the marvelous privilege and responsibility to follow the example of Noah, even as we also follow Jesus Christ--the Maker, Sustainer, and Reconciler of all things, including God's other creatures (Colossians 1:15-20).
Among the great and effective models of conserving endangered species is the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 that passed the Senate on December 19 by voice vote and the House of Representatives on December 20 by a vote of 355 to 4, and was subsequently signed into law by President Nixon. It recognizes that providing for living creatures requires protection of their homes and habitats and engages the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to apply the most rigorous science to develop common sense solutions to prevent the extinction of endangered fish, plants, and wildlife. The Act is preventing extinctions, helping species stabilize, and starting species toward recovery. This "emergency room" for endangered and very fragile species is preserving God's creation, despite chronic shortfalls in sufficient funding.
The Endangered Species Act's requirement for common sense solutions based upon application of scientific and ethical understanding is right and necessary. As in the act of Noah, it serves as a safety net for plants and animals that are on the brink of extinction. Beyond simply rescuing species, the Endangered Species Act provides the context for predicting what species might become endangered in the future and thereby encourages voluntary actions of responsible stewardship, both private and public, by groups and individuals to take corrective measures that make it unnecessary to declare species endangered. It also provides a system of checks and balances by requiring federal agencies whose projects could impact endangered species to consult with wildlife biologist experts. The Act safeguards the habitats within which endangered species can regain a foothold on life and ultimately flourish. And it has been viewed as an important model by the rest of the world.
While we owe it to our children and grandchildren to be good stewards of creation, leaving them a legacy of protecting endangered species and their habitats, we also owe this to our Creator through whom and by whom these creatures have been created and are sustained. We count it a privilege to be good and faithful stewards of creation and to image in our lives and landscapes God's care for us and all creation. For us, stewardship also requires witness and includes raising our voices against attempts to weaken public policies that protect the common good, such as the U. S. Endangered Species Act.
The Academy is concerned about efforts to erode provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that have helped prevent the extinction of many species, including the American Bald Eagle. Weakening of the Endangered Species Act does not serve the common good and undermines our efforts to be faithful stewards. As a society, we must not presume authority to achieve self-interest at the expense of God's creatures and God's creation. Turning away from care for God's creation and the common good in order to promote self-interest shifts seeking the kingdom of God out of its appropriate and necessary first place.
In addition, the Academy is concerned about deceptive statements that couch weakening of the Endangered Species Act in words that mislead people into thinking that actions to weaken the Act are "reforms," "modernizations," "enhancements," and so on. An example is legislation voted on in 2004 that would have significantly hampered the full use of science in informing ESA decisions. Because of this, the bill was publicly opposed by hundreds of scientists and groups like the Ecological Society of America; yet this anti-science legislation was termed by its authors the "Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act" (H.R. 1662). It is dishonest to dress damaging of the Endangered Species Act in terms that suggest its improvement. We believe such efforts amount to a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
All this means that we, as professional scientists and ethicists, and as believers, find God's creation to be rich and full--created, sustained, and reconciled as beautifully described in Colossians 1:15-20. We know, however, that we have the capacity to destroy ecosystems on a global scale. Our scientific belief in this horrific potential parallels the biblical judgment that the destroyers of the earth themselves will be destroyed (Revelation 11:18), even as we believe that people who truly follow the One who created, sustains, and reconciles all things (Greek: ta panta) are promised everlasting life (John 3:16).
In recognition of the need for people of all faiths to come together to safeguard God's creation, the Academy calls upon other religious communities to address this important and vital need to protect and preserve the lineages of God's living creatures so they will not perish from the earth. We offer our cooperation with other faith traditions in this mutual pursuit. Respectful of our biblical heritage, the Academy particularly invites cooperation with those traditions that take seriously, as we do, the biblical example of Noah as a model for being faithful to God's call to protect endangered species from extinction. Ours is the time for a concert of religious voices to proclaim our privilege and responsibility for not allowing the great lineages of God's living creatures to be broken, for preventing these lineages from becoming but a fading memory for our children and grandchildren, born and unborn.
Editor's Note: Membership in the Academy is restricted to evangelical scientists and ethicists who have earned the highest degrees in their disciplines and who are actively engaged in their fields of expertise in research, college and university teaching, and public service. Among the more than 50 members of the Academy are professionals across the full range of evangelical churches, denominations, and colleges and universities. For more information about the Academy contact Cal DeWitt at cbdewitt@wisc.edu.
Speaking Truth to Power
Dorothy Boorse"Well," said an insistent congressman. "Well, which is it, artificially help prairie chickens breed in my state or lose jobs? " He didn't wait for a response. "Chickens or jobs? Which? Which?"
Gathering my thoughts as quickly as I could, I answered "Well, congressman, I've lost track of my options. Are we artificially inseminating these prairie chickens?" A moment of laughter pulled the group back from the edginess of discord. Then I turned to answer the larger question, "Why should we make sacrifices to protect non-human creatures?"
I was in a hearing for a house Resources subcommittee, where I was in danger of becoming confused by a volley of disconnected questions, interruptions ad statements from a group of people who largely did not want to hear what I had to say.
What I had to say was pretty simple: as a scientist I knew that endangered species need habitat protection. The committee was convening to hear about the Wildlands project, an environmental proposal to connect core habitat areas with corridors through which plants could disperse and animals could travel. These corridors are currently highly studied in ecology and protection of habitat is widely understood among ecologists to be the cornerstone of protection of endangered species. Both the Endangered Species Act and the Wildlands project stress the need for habitat protection. Both are under pressure from groups that are not supportive of environmental laws.
I was also wearing a second hat, that of an environmentally concerned Christian. Suellen Lowryhad recruited me to represent the Noah Alliance,a new coalition of faith based environmental groups advocating for protection of endangered species. As an evangelical Christian I believe it is part of my God-given responsibility to protect the environment and other species from negative results of human activities. I feel that by polarizing discussion to be the environment versus jobs is inappropriate. Just as we need to protect both justice and jobs or care of people and jobs, we should be protecting both jobs and species together. Certainly we could be putting our creative energies into that effort.
By the time of the exchange about the prairie chicken,I had given my expert witness testimony already. I had already sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I was in the middle of the question period when the questions were coming from all directions. At that moment, I had a sense of peace. I was faced with a number of questions of interest and did my best to explain the while we have been given dominion, it is not the right to destroy. Neither is it our prerogative to cause extinction of species, even if God has done so during extinction events in the past. Indeed, I argued, short sighted destruction of the environment will harm people as well as other species, as unintended consequences result in loss of ecosystem services on which we depend. As a scientist, I explained what I could about the need for corridors.
A mass of other people had helped me get to that place- people on conference calls, paying my way, meeting me at the meeting, sending me white papers on land use - it was as if a huge troop were all trying to get this one short testimony into the congressional record. As Suellen said before I went: "speak truth to power." That was our goal to speak the truth about our responsibilities to care for creation to those in power.
Editor's Note: See Boorse's testimony to the House Resources Committee elsewhere in this issue.
Testimony Before the House Resources Committee
Dorothy BoorseThank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am an associate professor of Biology at Gordon College, in Wenham Massachusetts, with a Masters degree in Entomology from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in Oceanography and Limnology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Gordon is a Christian four-year liberal arts college in the Protestant tradition, but my comments are my own and do not represent the college. My remarks today stem from two perspectives: one as a scientist and the other as a person of faith who is concerned about being a steward of all creation.
Before turning to scientific questions, I would like to stress for the committee that people across the spectrum of religious life take the issue of protecting endangered species profoundly seriously. I am an example of this; I have taken time to join you today to share some of my scientific knowledge, but also because I feel called by my faith to be here. I will talk about this later.
As a scientist, I am not here as an expert on the Wildlands Project, but as a broadly trained ecologist with interests in both aquatic and terrestrial ecology. Specifically, I can address the questions: What is the ecological importance of corridors and problems of habitat fragmentation? And why should we care about protecting at-risk species and their habitat?
Corridors provide a number of ecological services to conserve at-risk and endemic species. For example, the movement of individual members of species increases genetic variation; corridors provide more adequate space for wide-ranging species, such as the Florida panther; corridors allow recolonization of habitat patches where small populations may have been lost; and habitat linkages enhance the pollination and propagation of plants. Amphibians such as salamanders, for instance, often need to travel between upland over-wintering sites and breeding pools. Corridors can increase their survival during travel, particularly during dry periods, when open areas are more dangerous.
Another way to understand the importance of corridors is to consider serious negative ramifications from the converse: habitat fragmentation. Considerably disturbing or destroying intact habitat has significant effects on wildlife. Habitat fragmentation makes it more difficult for species that require interior habitat to travel, increases the likelihood of individuals being injured when they attempt travel (primarily through injury by cars), and enhances the ability of non-native species to move into an area. The presence of introduced, invasive species correlates very clearly to habitat fragmentation through roads and other human use. For example, purple loosestrife is clearly connected to roadways, and the likelihood of infestation of zebra mussels in lakes is associated with their level of visitation by boaters. In addition, certain species, such as white-tailed deer and ragweed, thrive on edges of habitat fragments and can become over-populated, part of a phenomenon called the "edge effect."
Habitat fragmentation has a big impact on how ecosystems work. A good example in the news right now is the Amazon where there are gigantic forest fires, burning out of control. These fires are exacerbated by the edge effect. In one 1993 study, 90 percent of burning fires in Amazon basins were in forest edges. Forest trees are also more likely to be harmed by air pollution when forests are fragmented. In addition, habitat fragmentation has a significant impact on regional water issues and erosion. Because habitat fragmentation often involves removal of vegetation, soils are disrupted. Some desert soils, for example, have a top layer called the cryptobiotic crust composed of microbes and heavy particles; if you break this crust, you get erosion.
Habitat loss is widely recognized as the leading cause of endangerment. Some benefits from enhanced habitat through corridors occur quickly; others take longer. However, they all demonstrate that adequate habitat must be protected in order to conserve threatened and endangered species. Much like homes for people, habitats provide basic necessities for fish, plants, and wildlife: food and water, areas for breeding and propagation, and shelter. For us to fulfill our responsibility to protect fragile species, we must ensure that critical habitat is safeguarded. Without such attention to habitat conservation, extinctions will increase, and our society's priority in protecting species from extinction, reflected for example in the Endangered Species Act, will be impeded. The Endangered Species Act has acted as a safety net to prevent extinctions and help a number of species stabilize, but for the Act to fulfill its potential, habitat must be protected.
Conserving habitat also is vitally important for people. Pragmatically, we use resources from the environment that we will later wish we had treated better. Reports have shown this to be true in fisheries, where, for example, Nature has reported that 90 percent of large predator fish have been cleared from the seas in the last 50 years. Ecosystems services such as purifying water and air, or dampening floods and holding soil in place, are performed by natural systems and are impossible or extremely costly to replace with technology. In addition, healthy ecosystems help protect species that are vital to agriculture, industries such as outdoor recreation, medicinal breakthroughs, and even our own oxygen supply. Moreover,if you care about the poor and oppressed, you have to care about the environment. Often the poor are most harmed by environmental degradation and least able to solve it. In short, we are all part of a complex and marvelous web of life, and the well-being of current and future generations depends upon us taking good care of it.
But utilitarian rationales are not the only reasons to care for the environment. Nature brings us joy and pleasure, as well as at times declaring the glory of God. I am also here representing a Christian stewardship ethic. While I am an evangelical Christian, I realize we live in a society with a wide range of beliefs. Today's testimony reflects my own deeply held beliefs; others may care about creation for alternative reasons.
I believe God has created the world for His own glory and given humans the task of caring for it. While we have the right to use its resources, this right is always in the context of our responsibility as stewards; the ownership of all remains in God's hands.
Throughout the Judeo Christian tradition, the role of nature in glorifying the creator is a repeated theme. Species have value not only because we as people think so, but also because it is clear that God thinks so. In addition, as a Christian I see that Christ calls us to a radical departure from the culture around us. Christians are exhorted not to worry about personal financial gain, not to seek fame and fortune, but to live lives focused on the tasks we have been given. One of these tasks is to care for the world left in our management.
I am not alone in viewing caring for creation, including endangered species, as an important part of my faith. While I speak for myself here, the committee should recognize the breadth of engagement and commitment by members of the religious community to the protection of all God's creatures.
For example, a new collaboration of faith groups has recently been established called the "Noah Alliance," and one member of this Alliance is the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists. A draft statement being prepared by the Academy reminds us that "[t]he beauty, joy, and health of human life on earth depend deeply upon the wide variety and great richness of plant and animal life God has provided. This abundant life brings immense and continuous praise to God (Psalm 148), leaving all people without excuse about knowing God's divinity and everlasting power (Romans 120)." Work is also occurring in the Jewish and mainline Protestant communities to be a witness for the protection of fragile species, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has identified this as an important area of concern. This broad, multi-faceted faith community chorus is being raised at both national and local levels. They are making materials available to congregations across the country, working to meet with policy leaders, talking with the media, and talking with each other.
You can expect to hear from many people of faith as they witness with passion and resolve about the importance of protecting endangered species. I wept at the thought of the ivory-billed woodpecker being extinct and praised God when we learned it was not. I wake up in the morning and care about species; I go to bed at night and still care about them. From personal experience, I know that many in the religious community share this commitment.
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that we cannot fulfill our responsibility to care for the world with which we have been entrusted unless we understand it. For me, this is the connection between my faith and science. As an ecologist, I and my scientific colleagues are passionately convinced that to protect species, we need to provide them with ways to remain connected. As a person of faith, I am equally passionate and feel called to speak out for such connections as well as other protections for habitat and the overall environment. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide such witness.
Editor's Note: This article is the testimony given by Dorothy Boorse before the House Resources Committee on June 16, 2005. Dr. Boorse teaches at Gordon College. See her reflections on her experience in this issue.
Progress in Senate on Addressing Global Warming
Jim BallThe old football metaphor "three yards and a cloud of dust" aptly describes the slow but crucial progress recently made in the Senate on having the federal government of the United States seriously address global warming.
But why is progress at the federal level so difficult?
It's not that the scientific findings aren't clear. To make sure government leaders have gotten the message the National Academies of Science for all G8 countries (including the U.S.), plus the scientific Academies of China, India, and Brazil, issued a joint statement on June 7 that stated:
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action … Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future."
It's not that there hasn't been significant progress in other areas such as the business community.
For example, business leaders in industries that would have to make significant changes are starting to take the lead in changing their company's behavior.
Listen to what they have to say:
James E. Rogers, CEO of Cinergy, a utility with $4.6 billion in annual revenue that produces 95% of its electricity from burning coal: "…I am convinced that it is prudent to take action now to address what we do know (about climate change)."
Paul Anderson, CEO of Duke Energy, an electric utility: "Personally I feel the time has come to act" and "We will be proactive on the issue of global climate change … Ideally, U.S. public policy should encourage a transition to a lower-carbon-intensive economy through a broad-based approach, such as a carbon tax or other mechanism which addresses all sectors of the economy."
Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO of General Electric (the country's largest company), in announcing GE's "Ecomagination" efforts: "I think [global warming] is something we need to start figuring out and taking proactive steps to make improvements on."
So given these developments, why is progress in addressing global warming still hard? It's hard because powerful forces are arrayed to stop it. Those "three yards" of progress in the Senate on climate change were gained recently in the face of hostility from the White House, the House of Representatives, Exxon-Mobil and other industry die-hard opponents, and a public that doesn't quite understand the need for action now due in large part to the disinformation campaign of special interests.
On June 22, 2005 our most august governmental body took an important step forward in their willingness to address global warming. In a resolution offered by Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) the Senate recognized for the first time ever both that (1) global warming caused by human beings is happening, and (2) voluntary measures are inadequate and a mandatory market-based approach is required to address this serious problem. (Previously, in unanimously approving the 1992 Rio Treaty on climate change the Senate had recognized that climate change is a problem that needed to be addressed, but had until now only affirmed voluntary approaches.)
In addition, during the debate on the Bingaman Resolution Sen. Domenici, the powerful Chair of the Senate Energy Committee, promised to hold a series of hearings on climate change. True to his word, the first hearing on climate science was on July 21, with the most prestigious panel ever assembled for a congressional hearing on climate. Included on the panel was Sir John Houghton, an evangelical Christian (see an interview with Sir John elsewhere in this issue). Even long-time climate skeptic Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) acknowledged at the hearing that climate change is happening and must be addressed.
In the floor debate on addressing global warming, a heretofore uncommitted Sen. DeWine (R-OH) was unequivocal: "Climate change is happening. There is simply no question about that. It is time the United States takes the lead in slowing its progress and in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions … We must be bold. We need to be imaginative. We need to be visionary … Realistically, greater investments are not going to be made until we, as a Nation, pull our heads out of the sand and accept the reality that climate change is in fact occurring."
While the Bingaman resolution is non-binding, it is nevertheless significant because 53 Senators are now on record supporting a mandatory market-based approach to reducing global warming pollution. The 10 new Senators taking such a stand are: Alexander (R-TN), DeWine (R-OH), Domenici (R-NM), Graham (R-SC), Specter (R-PA), Warner (R-VA), Byrd (D-WV), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), and Pryor (D-AR). These Senators are to be commended and thanked for supporting this important step in helping to move the country forward on addressing global warming.
A notable Senator who didn't support the resolution was Sen. Brownback (R-KS). Because he is a conservative Republican, Sen. Brownback is to be commended for acknowledging that human-induced global warming is happening ("I believe we are seeing global climate change. I do believe that consequences of man's actions are here."), and for voting for another measure to require 10% of electricity to be produced by renewable sources by 2020. But unfortunately he did not take the next step in leadership and stand up for a mandatory market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gases. That's too bad. Hopefully, he will be ready to support significant action when the time comes.
While the Bingaman resolution is important as a pledge from the Senate to enact meaningful climate legislation, that pledge will need to be fulfilled. It's only three yards and a cloud of dust, but at least we're moving forward.
Interview with Sir John Houghton on the Mall in Washington, DC.
March 11, 2005
Editor's Note: As former Chair of the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988-2002, Sir John Houghton is one of the world's most authoritative experts on climate change who recently testified before the Senate Energy Committee on July 21. He is also a devout evangelical Christian. In March 2005 the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) arranged for Sir John to brief the Board of the National Association of Evangelicals near Washington, DC. Footage for an educational DVD featuring Sir John was also shot during Sir John's visit. This DVD includes an interview on March 11 with Sir John by Jim Ball, Executive Director of EEN. The transcript of that interview is provided below.
Rev. Jim Ball: Sir John, how did you become a Christian?
Sir John Houghton: Well, I can't name the time and day for that. But I was brought up in a Christian home with very keen Christian parents, very narrow Christian parents by many standards. I suppose my first real challenge for that issue came when I went up to Oxford as a young school boy, age of 16. Oxford was then just after the war for ex-servicemen, much older than I was. But there was a keen Christian group in the college and they befriended me. I got to know the world and they really challenged me to make up my mind whether I was going to go with them or go somewhere else. And I said I was going to go with them.
Ball: What does your Christian faith mean to you?
Houghton: It means a great deal to me because first of all one of my first challenges was a scientist, and I was keen to be a scientist - that was I really wanted to do, and there seemed to be some conflict, or some people thought there were conflicts between science and faith. So I've been exploring the relation between my science and my faith for most of my life. And that's been a great search because we have God who's made the creation, we have this book of God's works, as we call it, and then we have the Bible which tells us about Jesus and what he's done for us. You put those two together and that's really wonderful because you get a much bigger picture of your Christian faith and the whole of your life by putting Jesus in the middle there and associating that with creation.
Ball: When did you first learn about global warming?
Houghton: I gave my first talk about it in 1967 to a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. But at that time, we didn't realize that global warming was going to be a major danger. We realized the earth might warm up a little bit, by one degrees 'C' [Celsius] or something of that order, but we had no idea how dangerous that might be. That didn't come until later.
Ball: When did you start thinking global warming was a real serious problem that needed to be addressed?
Houghton: We began to get concerned about it, I suppose, during the 70s. But then in 1983 I became the Director General of the Meteorological Office, which is the UK weather service. As part of the weather service there was a very good group working on climate and climate modeling, one of the best groups in the world at the time. We began very seriously to model the climate and try to discover just what increased greenhouse gases were going to do to the climate. We were developing all that during the early 80s and of course lots of scientists in the world were then saying, "The earth is warming up much faster than we had thought. We are burning much more fossil fuels than we imagined and this is going to be a serious problem." It was in the beginning of the 80s, I suppose, that we began to get concerned as scientists. But it still wasn't a political issue, until about 1988.
Ball: And that's when you became head of the scientific assessment, is that right?
Houghton: The IPCC was formed in 1987. It had its first meeting in 1988 and I became the chairman of the scientific assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel [on Climate Change].
Ball: Why are you concerned as a Christian about global warming?
Houghton: Well, as a Christian one is concerned about how well we are looking after the earth and how well we are looking after the atmosphere and the whole climate because the climate affects what happens on the earth and what happens to the vegetation, what happens to the birds, what happens to the oceans. Any change in climate, if it is too rapid, tends to have a big influence on the earth and its ecosystems. Now, I'm not a biologist, but I'm interested in that sort of thing. But I also began to realize, as others did, that the impact on people would be, or could be, enormous if the climate was going to change in very serious ways. The sea level was likely to rise. It took us some time to get estimates of how big that might be. But also, the problem of extremes: floods and droughts and storms and so on. As the climate warms up, these are likely to become very much more intense, and in some cases, more frequent. So it was that aspect that was very concerning. And as a Christian I am very concerned that we look after the earth, as good stewards of the earth, as we are told in Genesis to be right from the beginning of the Bible. But the theme runs right through the Bible, right through to the New Testament. Jesus had parables about stewards and stewardship. I'm going away, said He, but you're going to look after it and you've got to look after the people in it, and it's your responsibility to do it. That's a very strong responsibility. One is very concerned as a Christian that one is doing a good job looking after the earth, on behalf of the Lord, who is its owner. The impacts on people will be very great, especially disadvantaged people. In a place like here in Washington we've got the infrastructure to cope with it and adapt to whatever we have to adapt to. But if you're in Sub-Saharan Africa or in India, or South East Asia, then that's much harder and the impacts of climate change will be much greater there, and they don't have the infrastructure. So hundreds of millions of people will be affected. They will not be able to grow the food where they are so easily, so hundreds of millions are going to become more hungry. That's a big problem in the world at the moment and [global warming impacts] will make it worse. And then the sea level will rise. Tens of millions of people in Bangladesh will be displaced because they live on very low lying ground; twenty-five million people in China, people in the Indian and Pacific oceans where the lands are very low indeed. Some of those islands will disappear; whole states will disappear. It's a very severe impact on people and we should be very concerned as Christians and realize what we are doing, what each one of us is doing, in emitting carbon dioxide is change the world and its climate. And we should do something about it.
Ball: How did your Christian values guide you as the Chair of the IPCC's Scientific Assessment?
Houghton: The Intergovernmental panel -- we were a scientific body. What we had to do was access the science as honestly and as thoroughly and as balanced a way as possible. So, only scientific arguments were allowed. No political agendas, no personal agendas, and so on. It was very important to maintain that. Those are Christian values; those are values which are shared by others who are not Christians, but they are particularly Christian values. And the discipline of science is a marvelous area to operate in. Why? Because it's God's science and we're looking for truth, and it must be truth in a very balanced way. That was very important to me. But then, of course, some of those meetings were very tough, because people tried to introduce political agendas. And people would try to introduce their own personal agendas. And how did one cope with that. Sometimes that was a tough thing to do. But I was very conscious that I wasn't doing this on my own. I was also conscious that I had God's help in doing it. And I knew that people were praying for me and for the whole process. Because it was felt to be a really important process, and that God could really help us with that. One of the stories, or pictures in Genesis I really love, is that of the Garden when God was walking in the garden with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day, every day. Obviously a regular thing that he did. And what did they talk about on those walks? They must have been talking about creation. "How are you getting on Adam? How are you getting on with the animals, and the plants? How's the garden going?" Because God is really interested. He cares. He cares about everything we do and he cared about how I was trying to run those meetings and trying to run them in a way that was no only good for everyone there but also in some sense pleasing to him.
Ball: Global warming is a long term problem. What is the urgency? Why do we need to start addressing it now?
Houghton: It's happening now. We can see a bit of it now. But it's a slow process. The earth only warms up slowly because the oceans take a long time to warm. Thirty to forty years until we see what we've committed to already. We are already committed to a lot of global warming because of what we've done so far. We won't see a lot of that for thirty to forty years. So why we should take action now is because we are doing things now, like building power stations and energy infrastructure that will last for 50 years. We don't want to suddenly tear those down and have the build something new. We want to phase it in in a way that is sensible and economic and cost effective. If we have to do that in a hurry in 50 years times, then the cost of that will be enormous. So, the cost of doing it now is small. We have the technology to do it now so we should get on with it now.
Ball: Some say that the science isn't certain enough yet for us to do anything about it. What are your thoughts about the certainty of the knowledge that humans are in fact causing global warming and creating a problem by causing global warming.
Houghton: I would just say I've worked with hundreds of the world's scientists and the vast majority of the world's scientists know that it is happening and understand the science. The basic science after all is very old science; it's been know for two hundred years, that the greenhouse effect works, that we are as warm as we are at the moment because of greenhouse gases. If you put up more of those gases, the world becomes warmer. There is no doubt about that from a physics point of view or from a basic science point of view. No scientist who knows anything will dispute that. What some people are disputing is the detail and how big it will be, and how damaging it will be. I would just refer them to the Intergovernmental Panel [on Climate Change] and its volumes; four volumes, thousand pages each, up to ten thousand scientific references in those volumes, the best refereed, the best worked on piece of science almost ever, in any part of science. Very authoritative indeed. I would also refer them to the Framework convention on Climate Change, where every nation in the world, essentially, except for some of the very small ones, 160 nations, signed up to the Framework Convention in 1992 in Rio. President Bush the first signed for the United States. The United States ratified it unanimously. What does that convention say? It says that although we haven't got absolute certainty, we have enough information, enough knowledge with which to act and we should be acting now. And that was in 1992. The science has gotten much further since 1992. The science has all been confirmed to a large extent. We know more than we did and the thing seems more severe than in was in 1992. So if that was true then, it's even more true now that we're required to take action even though we don't know everything. And after all, if I was a commercial company, a company like British Petroleum, the chairman of British Petroleum, like the chief executive, Lord John Brown, he gives lectures on climate change like I do. And that company is really taking it on board. They are beginning to cut their own emissions through their own internal activities and they've saved 400 million dollars already by doing that and there is no doubt at all that action has to begin now.
Ball: Some people say, "Ok, there's a problem. But it's going to cost too much to fix this problem and there are lots of other problems in the world, and this is just too costly. We're just going to have to live with it." What do you think about that?
Houghton: Well, not to do it, not to act, is going to be very much more costly than acting. The cost of acting is not large. The cost of acting, if we phase it in sensibly, if we do things slowly, if we develop the technology we need to develop, that would be very good for industry, we'll become more efficient, we'll actually save money. In fact, the simple things we do will be negatively costly; they'll cost less than what we're spending at the moment. And the estimate costs of even changing the whole of our energy system in 50 years that people have made, the cost is not large. It's a small proportion of the growth of our GDP. But if we don't do it, our GDP will go down in many places because of the dangers and the problems of climate change. So, all the people saying it will be terribly costs and costly in jobs are quite wrong. Jobs will be created because of the new industries that will need to follow in order to change what we do. And just imagine what we can do in 50 years time, actually, through 50 years. Imagine what we've done since 1950; we can do a great deal before 2050. And we've got to get on with it now.
Ball: What can Christians in the United States do to address this issue? And what is the role of the United States in addressing the issue of global warming?
Houghton: The United States is a very important country and it has a very big responsibility. First of all you are the biggest part of the problem. 20-35% of emissions of greenhouse gases come from the US. Much more per capita than any other country in the world. Secondly, you are the country with the biggest potential for contributing to the solution. So not only are you the biggest part of the problem, but you can be the biggest part of the solution because of your capabilities, your technology, things you can do, and the leadership you can provide. You are the most powerful nation in the world. You should be providing leadership in this issue above all issues, because you really can help the rest of the world to do something about it. In order to do that, you have to begin to do things yourselves, in very substantial ways. You've got to cut your own greenhouse gas emissions, on the fastest timescale you can possibly do. You've got to help China and India develop in ways that are environmentally friendly, and don't emit too much, but allowing them to develop at the same time. There are lost of things you can do here. And Christians, you are a Christian country, known as a Christian country, you have a Christian President. And you should be seen as a country that is listening to the rest of the world and also taking on board the needs particularly of the poor in the world in a way that probably no other country really has the capacity of doing. So let me appeal to the Christians of America: take this problem seriously, starting now.
Rejoicing For a Rediscovered Creature
Benjamin E. LeeseThe Ivory-billed Woodpecker, one of the most magnificent birds on earth, had been thought to be extinct in the United States for twenty to sixty years (depending on who you believe had the last sighting). A 2002 expedition to find it in the Louisiana bayou, its last possible haunt, turned up nothing. There were rumors of a few birds still in Cuba, but it seemed more and more obvious each year that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was gone from the United States.
That all changed on April 28, 2005. A paper appeared in the journal Science exclaiming that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker had been found in the Big Woods of Arkansas. No one less than John Fitzpatrick, the director of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology authored the paper, so I believed it. I rejoiced to know that the glorious, massive woodpecker that some people called the "Lord God Bird" because of its stature and presence still lived on this earth that I walk upon.
No sooner did I rejoice than I also began to weep out of the sheer happiness of the moment. A creature that had been lost, a creature that I had been cheated out of ever seeing, still lived. Perhaps I felt something of what the shepherd who found his lost sheep or the woman who found her coin experienced when they recovered their dear possessions (What a great image the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker will be some day for a sermon on those texts from Luke 15). Something lost had been found!
I shared the news with my wife, but she did not think it was quite as exciting as I did. She was happy but did not feel the deep joy that I felt in that moment. After I finished crying as I shared the news with her, I began to wonder what all of this meant theologically, what it meant as a Christian to rejoice over the rediscovery of one of God's creatures.
The rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is an undoing of a tragedy, and it is a sign that humanity's sin against that species is not yet final or complete. Extinction at human hands is nothing short of sin; it is a mark of the brokenness and disharmony that humans bring upon creation. It is rebellion against God's intended beauty for creation and against God's will for the coming Reign in which all things are made new. So to know that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker yet lives is to know that somehow human sin has not gotten the better of that species. Death, the ultimate expression of our sin, does not reign for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and as Christians we can give thanks any time when life prevails over death and where sin does not hold the victory.
I must quickly add though that mingled with my tears of joy for the finding of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker were also bitter tears of sadness for the Heath Hen and the Labrador Duck and the Great Auk and all the other creatures that no longer share the planet with me. Those tears were all to aware of humanity's sin in destroying those creatures, but perhaps a bit hopeful too knowing that they would find a future in God's Coming Reign, with a new heavens and a new earth (Revelation 21).
That Coming Reign is often thought of as a song in which all creation joins in praise of God. And the rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker means that the great chorus of creatures that praises God (Psalm 148.10) still has the tin-horn call of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as part of the choir. With that image of the praising orchestra, we are even more aware of the importance of each species in God's will for the earth. And we can praise God that in this case the unity of the choir remains in tact as the Ivory-bill joins in the singing.
And perhaps its continued presence is also important because it is a symbol that wilderness yet exists. And without that wild place of testing and spiritual growth that the people of Israel experienced throughout the Old Testament, the world is simply a poorer place. And without wilderness we are poorer Christians because we lack a full sense of God's greatness and the unique places where God met the people in the wilds of the world. So as symbol of that wilderness, the woodpecker finds a place in the Christian heart that still longs for untamed places that testify to God's glory.
Christians can rejoice at the rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker - for its place in the choir of God's creatures, for how it symbolizes the wilderness, and most of all because something that was lost has been found and death does not reign. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker lives and the world is a richer place with its call still filling up the woods of Arkansas and with its barrage of woodchips still falling out of the sky. At least for me it is a symbol that the Kingdom of God is still coming and that our sin is still being overcome by God's work of redemption. But of course the best response is a song of praise (tune: AZMON, "O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing")
The Ivory-billed still haunts the wood
And flies amidst the green
Of trees and vines that long have stood
To praise their God and King
Its voice still lifts its song on high
In praises of the One
Who called the light out of the night
And set in place the sun
And so we shall rejoice and weep
That our sister bird still lives
What once was lost now had been found
How great the gifts God gives!
Editor's Note: Benjamin E. Leese is a student at Trinity Lutheran Seminary and a staffer at Camp Kirchenwald. Ben has also written creation-care curriculum for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
A Noah Alliance for God's Creatures
Suellen LowryChristians have a long tradition of caring for creation and all God's creatures, as the recently released statement by the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists eloquently discusses (published in this issue).
For many years, scientists have expressed alarm about the numbers of species facing extinction. In a major study published in 1995, the National Academy of Sciences noted that "many scientists consider… [the current rate of extinctions] to have reached crisis proportions." More recently, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) of over 10,000 scientists stated, "A total of 15,589 species face extinction… One in three amphibians and almost half of all freshwater turtles are threatened, on top of the one in eight birds and one in four mammals known to be in jeopardy." In the United States, the most prevalent reasons for extinctions are loss of habitat and the presence of invasive species.
In response to concerns about accelerating rates of extinction, the U.S. Congress began passing endangered wildlife protection laws in the 1960s. In 1973, Congress approved, and President Nixon signed into law, the current Endangered Species Act (which has been modified through major amendments in 1978, 1982, and 1988). Sometimes termed the "crown jewel of environmental laws," the Endangered Species Act is the most far-reaching wildlife protection law ever adopted.
Thanks to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a number of species have not gone extinct and several are stabilizing and improving. It takes a long time to bring a very fragile species to the point that it is "recovered" and no longer needs ESA protections, but a few have achieved recovery.
The Endangered Species Act sets forth a common-sense structure for protecting fragile species. For a creature to be protected, it must be placed on an ESA list. The decision to list a species is based on the best scientific information. Once a species is listed, it cannot be "taken" (e.g., killed, captured, or harmed) unless someone has an incidental take permit. In addition, the Act provides for (a) the designation of "critical habitat" for listed species; and (b) drafting of recovery plans that seek to bring a species to the point that it no longer needs to be listed. All these steps to list a species, designate critical habitat, and approve a recovery plan are published for public review and comment, and "critical habitat" designations only affect federal actions.
One key additional part of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to "consult" with wildlife experts in the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. The wildlife experts determine if proposed actions by a federal agency may jeopardize the continued existence of the species. This consultation requirement has seldom stopped federal actions, but it has resulted in modifications to protect listed species, and many consider this one of the most effective parts of the ESA.
The Endangered Species Act is not the only law that helps at-risk species. Protection of habitat (places species need for shelter, food, breeding, etc.) is key, and a number of conservation laws can be helpful in this regard, including laws for the protection of wetlands and clean water. In addition, like most major laws, the Endangered Species Act has room for strengthening. Unfortunately, however, some policy makers are seeking to weaken the Act, and at times they cloak their weakening legislation in words that suggest they are improving the law.
Because attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act are so serious and people of faith feel significant responsibility for protecting endangered species, recently a collaboration of Evangelical, Jewish, and other groups and denominations have joined together to form the "Noah Alliance." This new Alliance has a website, www.noahalliance.org, with information to help incorporate themes about the protection of God's world and creatures into worship and religious education. You also can locate items on the website about how to take action to raise your voice in support of protecting endangered species and maintaining a strong Endangered Species Act.
Editor's Note: Suellen Lowry is the coordinator of the Noah Alliance. Contact Suellen at 707-826-1948, suellenquaker@cox.net.