The Environmental Paradox

I read something very interesting today. USA Today is reporting that with the first billion dollars of the Government’s Cash For Clunkers program, Americans have already begun conserving 3.5 million barrels of oil a year. Each person who has traded in a gas guzzler for anything with better mileage is saving 300 gallons of gas per year.I am duly impressed. The government has come up with a program that helps people get cars, saves jobs (dealers, sales people, auto workers), conserves oil, makes our country safer (by needing to import less oil), and reduces air pollution. While I have yet to see any impact from the $700 billion stimulus, this measly billion has had an effect on real people. Good job congress! Approve the other $2 billion now!

Now, I have a lot of friends who do not like the program. They have many reasons but one I hear is that tax money shouldn’t be used to support all this environmental stuff. Many argue that global warming is all hype and we should not be concerned about hugging trees. While I believe that global warming is a cyclical phenomenon about which we have no control, I have to disagree about hugging trees. I think they should be embraced. Personally, I am opening up to my environmental side and embracing all of creation, not just the trees. What you might find interesting is that my thoughts and positions on the environment are not being formed by concerns about fuzzy creatures or worries about the kind of earth I will leave to my grandchildren. My new found environmentalism is being fueled by nothing less than God’s word.

I have always been baffled by two things when it comes to people’s views on the environment. The first is that most people who care about the environment do so from a mostly secular viewpoint. Of course, I don’t want to stereotype people or in any way assume that all of group “x” believes “y” but from what I have observed, the majority of people espousing a philosophy of conservation and protection of the environment are believe in evolution. This makes  no sense to me. If one believes in evolution, one has to believe in survival of the fittest. Only the strongest species survive to evolve, right? If this is true, why care if we eliminate other species? Humans are the strongest and we will survive. Slash and burn, let evolution sort it out…

The second thing that baffles me is that the majority of those who mock environmentalists and call them “tree huggers” claim to be Bible based believers in creationism. I have heard it taught that since mankind is the apex of creation, it is acceptable for us to do whatever it takes to survive and live comfortably. But God’s charge to us was to care for and protect creation. We are charged with being stewards. Stewards do not use up resources and them throw them aside as rubish. Stewards plan ahead. Stewards figure out how to maximize resources by making them last. Stewards care for the weak at the expense of the strong. That includes animal and plant species in far away places. We are called to care for the creation, not exploit it.

These are just my thoughts on the issue. Whatever yours are, I am just asking for consistancy. If there is no God, why protect the nvironment? If there is a God, we better do better at obeying HIS command to take care of HIS creation!