prince charles has a fantastic website, it is in the blogroll to the side. it’s mission is simple… save the rainforest and save humanity. all you have to do is give your name and email address. if you are feeling powerless (as we all do) to change the way we treat our planet, this is place you can go where you can at least do something. whatever you think of royalty, prince charles works hard for the things i only wish our politicians would work for. climate change is the issue of our time… nothing else has and will affect human life on this planet so drastically if we don’t act now. it’s a hard fact and the consequences of our doing nothing are unimaginably horrifying.
okay, ranty preach over.
Go Prince Charles!
There are lots of environments we need to pay attention to. There are rainforests which are not tropical, and there are deserts, in unlikely places.
There’s temperate rainforests in Pacific Northwest US and other spots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest
http://66.204.151.69/2001Outwest/PacificNaturalHistory/Projects/LachowskyR/Default.htm
And, contrary to first impressions, Antarctica is a desert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
so, yes, there’s unique and irreplaceable environments everywhere.
Comment by Forrest — July 12, 2009 @ 5:02 am
Okay, I’m going to be a brat. Why are we trying to stop global warming when several million years ago Antarctica was forested with 80 foot trees?
Shouldn’t we let the planet get that warm again?
Is that not the right temperature for this ball of rock and water to be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ecozone
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041101/leaves.html
Comment by Forrest — July 12, 2009 @ 5:13 am
“We need to engage in ‘nature centric activities’ (rather than just human centric) and use its bounties, without exploiting or denuding it.”
Fantastic article!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Chernobyl-disaster-day-Le-by-Shobha-Shukla–Ci-090429-670.html
Comment by Forrest — July 12, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Thanks for pointing that out, Jon.
Comment by Carole — July 12, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
yes, it’s a biggy and good ol’ chaz is trying to give us a voice… good on him.
Comment by jonbirch — July 12, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
yep, go Charlie, keep it up
here’s to Global thinking instead of self interest, – though guess that comes a bit easier to Charles, as he can only go one up and step into his mum’s shoes at the event of her resignation, free to spend time on real issues instead of vote catchin
Comment by subo — July 12, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Forrest (#2) — the important thing about climate is not so much temperature, as stability.
I don’t know when it was that the Antarctic was forested; it may have been at the time when the continent was not actually at the South Pole. But even if it was possible for a continent at the South Pole to be forested, it would be a Very bad thing if the earth suddenly lurched from its current climate into a climate in which the Antarctic was warm enough to have forests, since it is likely that the sudden change would wipe out most life on Earth, not to mention human civilisation.
(Do I really need to tell you this?!)
Comment by rebecca — July 13, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
I’m just trying to get my head around why Christians would worry about the fate of the planet. With God in charge and the promise of eternal salvation, what is the issue? The Bible doesn’t seem to mention there ever being a period where the earth becomes uninhabitable prior to Jesus’ return.
Comment by JF — July 13, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Got a free moment – JF, I don’t think it’s so much the ultimate fate as the condition we’ve got it in when Jesus returns.
Adam and Eve, and their implied offspring, were created to have stewardship, i.e., be the caretakers of, this little ball of rock and water.
God has this really annoying tendency to hold people accountable for what jobs he gives them to do.
It’s humanity’s job, among other jobs, to take care of this place.
Don’t know about the rest of humanity, but I’ve already got enough screw-ups to answer for without trashing the planet God put me on to live.
Comment by Forrest — July 13, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
While Adam and Eve pulled the ultimate fubar and got themselves kicked out of the Garden of Eden, it’s a pretty safe bet that God’s original charge to care for this place still holds true.
Okay, really gotta git now!
Comment by Forrest — July 13, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Done – loved the kermit one
Comment by Robb — July 14, 2009 @ 9:59 am
cheers robb.
jf… what i can’t get my head round is why so many christians aren’t concerned about the way we treat the planet. stewardship is the first biblical principal, which follows through in to the law. as far as i know there is no biblical premise for giving up on that. i have to say, that greedy humanity destroying rainforest to the detriment of it’s brothers and sisters is a great example of us not loving our neighbours.
Comment by jonbirch — July 14, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
As a humanist, I believe how we treat the planet is extremely important and I am as dismayed as you that some others don’t even make the easy choices in favour of caring for the planet (let alone the harder ones). Bit if I believed that all this was going to be scrapped anyway on Jesus’ return, I can see how it wouldn’t matter as much.
Comment by JF — July 14, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
yeh jf… the theology of a world destroyed ain’t no biblical one… and i am dismayed frankly by anyone who cares not for the environment… bewildering.
Comment by jonbirch — July 14, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
JF – Stewardship is replete throughout the whole theology of the church. People may chose to ignore it or be ignorant of it but it is one of the main metanarrative that threads itself through the whole thing. It is right up there with salvation history and care for fellow man.
I’m guessing that when Jesus said “what you have done for these you have done for me” he was also talking about people who are screwing up the crop cycles in Uganda – for other people. Some seem to think that the only people who are their neighbours are the people they live next door to
People who miss that point have…. missed the point.
Comment by Robb — July 15, 2009 @ 7:23 am
Well maybe I am misunderstanding it … if the earth is going to be ‘renewed’, why does it matter how bad it gets first? If someone told me my house would get a ground-up renovation next year and be made perfect, I wouldn’t care quite so much about banging nails in the walls or spilling stuff on the carpet in the meantime. Surely if you teach that there will be an eternal “next” world, it devalues this one as transient by definition. How often is the term “wordly” used as a pejorative in church? Turning away from things that are “of this world”… this negative terminology surely cannot encourage people to value the planet.
Comment by JF — July 15, 2009 @ 11:15 am
world, flesh, heaven etc… words that mean more than one thing in the bible. you have pinpointed the very teaching that makes many not care at all. interesting that the usa, supposedly the biggest ‘christian’ country, has one of the most reckless track records when it comes to destruction and abuse of the planet. i’m afraid evangelicalism has done away with some of the bigger biblical themes and reduced christianity to a kind of me and god romance.
Comment by jonbirch — July 15, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
JF – What he said. US Evangelicalism has a lot of “interesting” theology about the end times. It is much easier to do that when the bible is taken without the nicene creed as though it dropped out of the sky at the reformation.
“We believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.”
Comment by Robb — July 15, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
We save the rain forest so that we can save ourselves or proclaim the gospel so that Jesus saves humanity?
I know that these are not exclusive, but it sounds very strange to say that we can save humanity by saving the rain forests.
What’s been done to the rain forest is tragic, but I just can’t get myself to spend much time or money on this as opposed to direct humanitarian aid and helping people to proclaim the gospel.
Jeff
Comment by Scripture Zealot — July 25, 2009 @ 12:09 am
hey there scripture zealot. i would say in response, that it needn’t/shouldn’t be either-or. the problem with rainforest distruction is that it immediately and badly effects the indigenous people who live there, it has immediate impact on weather systems around the world, causing flooding in some areas where people die or lose their homes. it is also in direct contravention to what god requires of humanity, from genesis through leviticus where our responsibilities are laid out pretty clearly. that’s in the here and now… in the future, we will be having to send much more aid to many millions more people as a result of our flagrant abuse to the planet.
jesus hasn’t just come to save humanity, he is the good news for all creation culminating in a new (or renewed) heavens and earth. that is the biblical position.
of course it is impossible to do all things. to recycle (no matter how much it may feel like a drop in the ocean), to sign our name so others can go with strength to appeal to our worlds governments on our behalf are just a couple of things we can do which cost nothing but make a difference.
as christians, the wanton destruction of god’s creation should sadden us to the core. yes, we may choose to focus our energies in the areas where we feel we can be most effective, but we must not kid ourselves that the enormity of what we do to the land has gone unnoticed by the Landlord.
taking good news to the ends of the earth should bring healing to the people of the earth and to the earth itself.
Comment by jonbirch — July 25, 2009 @ 12:46 am
Hi Jon,
I don’t think it should be either-or either which is what I meant by they shouldn’t be exclusive.
I agree that the destruction of the rainforest is an awful thing.
I do recycle but only because it makes sense not to throw away certain things when they can be re-used.
While we should be responsible with the resources we’ve been given I don’t think human beings impact the earth as much as many environmentalists would think or that humanity or the earth will come to an because of what we’ve done as opposed to when God says it’s time by sending Jesus here.
Jeff
Comment by Scripture Zealot — July 25, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
It’s not so much about it coming to an end, but the huge suffering that will be and is being caused by global warming, deforestation and other great ideas. And it won’t stop at third world countries – there will be a massive influx of migrants from the south seeking refure in the north and who’s going to be able to stop them? Will be chaos.
Comment by Tiggy — July 25, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
refuge
Comment by Tiggy — July 25, 2009 @ 11:21 pm