The Challenge of the Fifth Mark of Mission

Global warming, like love, changes everything. Actually, it turns out that love has everything to do with it. This series of articles is not, however, a meditation on the spirituality of climate change. It is a bold attempt to bridge the gap between trying to understand technical (and long!) scientific reports and being vaguely alarmed by apocalyptical statistics.

The first problem to acknowledge is that, unlike hell-fire preachers of earlier centuries, we are not certain about the consequences of our actions! At best, scientists are able to state the risk of certain things happening if greenhouse gases reach particular levels. For example, based on a large number of recent sophisticated computer simulations and other studies, the following statement can be made:

‘If atmospheric greenhouse gases stabilise at the equivalent of 450 parts per million (by volume) of carbon dioxide, then there is a 25% to 75% risk of the mean (average) global temperature eventually rising by at least 2 degrees Celsius.’ (Scientists say ‘equivalent’ to allow for all greenhouse gases, including methane.) What on earth does that mean?

First: at the present rate of emitting carbon dioxide, the atmosphere will contain 450 ppm equivalent within ten years. Second: mean temperature has already risen by about 0.7 degrees (from its pre-industrial value). As Christian Aid, Tearfund and W.D.M. are clearly warning us, the climate changes already causing problems for many poor communities most likely result from global warming. Undoubtedly glaciers are retreating, Artic ice is thinning etc. Three times the temperature rise (possible by mid-century) will cause severe problems for the West and worse for poor countries. Scientists, governments, businesses and campaigners agree that to exceed 2 degrees could be dangerous – possibly even triggering catastrophic ‘run-away’ heating.

Unfortunately, as psychological studies have shown, risk and probability are not easy to understand. If they were, pedestrians would spend money on reflective clothing rather than on lottery tickets. Put it this way: if we were told by reliable experts that an aircraft had a 50:50 chance of crashing, would we board it? We might be sceptical if people told us that no-one could prove that it would crash. We’d probably fly only if remaining in the airport meant certain death!

The UK Government is therefore very serious in planning for a 60% reduction in emissions (from 1990 values) by 2050. If such reductions could be achieved rapidly by the whole world (with continuing reductions beyond 2050), then the risk of exceeding a mean 2 degree rise becomes only (!) about 10% to 50%. The risk is smaller because once emissions of carbon dioxide fall below the net rate at which the gas is being absorbed, e.g. by plants growing more vigorously, the concentration in the atmosphere starts dropping. (Unless, of course, we have damaged ecosystems so badly that they take up less carbon dioxide.)

It would be interesting to know whether you, concerned reader, would willingly accept a 10% to 50% risk of very serious damage to the planet which Jesus walked and over which God made us stewards. But let’s get real. By 2050 the world’s population may have grown from 6 billion to nearer 9 billion, mostly in poorer countries. Not only do poor people want to work their way out of poverty, it is our Christian duty to help them. That needs energy and, at least to begin with, means extra greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore developed countries like ours, with the technological resources, must cut back much more to bring down global emissions even by 60%.

A major report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is expected shortly. This may give a more precise indication of risks, but is unlikely to reduce them. Nor can the IPCC tell us the acceptable risk of serious consequences for the poor or for our own children and grandchildren. The only sensible approach is for individuals, organisations, nations and the world to make urgent efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to develop alternative energy sources. We can refine the targets as we go along. Finding the political will to do all this is another matter! But essentially it is a spiritual challenge: do we really, really want justice, peace and the integrity of Creation?
 

Charles Jolly is a Lay Preacher and former Sixth Form College Vice Principal and Physics Lecturer. He has a life-long interest in Development and Environmental Issues. He is a member of the Steering Group for the Creation Challenge Environmental Network but accepts full responsibility for his own calculations and views. He cannot promise to enter into correspondence but would be interested to receive questions and comments by email