by Michael Winters
Today is Earth Day, the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day. To mark the occasion, National Geographic created a special “flip” issue. Both sides of the magazine function as the front and reading from either direction tells a story about what planet Earth could be like in 50 years. One side offers an optimistic viewpoint, and the other direction gives a pessimistic viewpoint.
This format made me question which side I identified with more. Will humanity look back 50 years from now and tell a story about “How we saved the world” or will we have to tell “How we lost the planet”?
The “How we saved the world” optimist’s side is considerably thicker, but mostly because nearly all the advertisements strategically land there. Emma Marris’ “The Case for Renewal” is summed up in the contents page: “We already have the tools to feed a larger population, provide energy for all, begin to reverse climate change, and prevent most extinctions.” The rest of the optimist’s side of the issue puts a lot of faith in these “tools” too. The tools seem to be mostly new, more, and better technology, as well as legislation. Nuclear, wind and solar power are held up as beacons of hope. Legislation like the Clean Water Act is commended. On this side we also find an electric car road trip story and good news about global gains: In the last 50 years food production has more than kept up with population growth, life expectancy has increased substantially, and maternal deaths have been roughly halved. Some of the global increases in human health provide the strongest arguments for the optimistic view.
The “How we lost the planet” pessimist’s side focuses mostly around all the current and expected future effects of climate change. Oceans are rising, temperatures are rising and weather is becoming more extreme in many places. Forest loss, coral loss, and loss of animal populations are also featured here. This side of the magazine is not as hopeful about “tools” to solve our planet’s problems because human consumption keeps outpacing any improvements we can make technologically. The growing demand for more energy and more access to cheaper goods for more people makes it unlikely our re-tooling will save us. One of the most troubling predictions here is the uncanny overlap of poverty with climate change disasters. Though they contribute much less to climate change, many of the places already struggling the most economically are likely to receive the worst effects of climate change.
So again, will humanity look back 50 years from now and tell a story about “How we saved the world” or will we have to tell “How we lost the planet”?
What might the Christian faith contribute to this conversation?
Admittedly, much more should be said about this than I can say here. Also, I don’t expect National Geographic to include God in the conversation about the future of the planet, but as a reader I can’t help but read through a Christian lens. From a Christian perspective, the titles “How we saved the world” and “How we lost the planet” are striking in their absence of God. In the pages of this magazine, salvation and damnation are entirely in human hands. It’s all up to us whether we save the planet or let it go to hell.
I don’t wish to diminish human power or the consequences of our actions at all. I believe both individually and collectively, humans yield incredible power to bring healing or destruction, beauty or ugliness. If you don’t believe it, watch the documentary Anthropocene: The Human Epoch, or just check out the project’s incredible website. We’ve altered this planet in remarkable and terrifying ways. If humanity goes unchecked we have the power to utterly destroy the planet, and we have power to bring healing too, if not ultimate salvation.
However, to be optimistic about the planet’s future, I think our hope needs to lie in something greater than human ingenuity, even as wonderful as human creativity can be. Especially since the Industrial Revolution we’ve been incredibly clever at meeting human needs and wants. However, the unintended consequences of our cleverness continues to make even more daunting situations, requiring ever more complicated cleverness. Our ultimate hope must be found elsewhere.Greater ingenuity—more cleverness—is not the answer.
I don’t know how else to say it: Our best and only hope is found in Jesus.
I’d find myself more optimistic about the future health of the planet if we all caught a holistic vision for Christ’s sacrificial love for the world. I fear an optimistic view that places its hope in human tools and technology is not enough and will fail us.
Jesus’ sacrificial love is our salvation and our model for human action in the world. Jesus' life can reorient how we relate to everything. In him and in the Trinity, we find an ecology of love. We must confess, sacrificial love is not our posture to the planet. Rather than sacrificing for the sake of the world, we use up the world to build our own wealth and comfort. I admit my own guilt here. I’m caught up in destructive systems of waste as much as anyone. The misuse of our power leads to diseased relationships and rapid declines of biodiversity. This is to say, our human power is often working against the flourishing of life. I wish it were different in the Christian community, but I know it’s not. Christians have often failed to see the importance of caring for the physical environment, believing that it’s really only “spiritual” things that are important, as if we could even imagine spiritual things apart from physical reality. Christians’ disregard for ecological health is yet another glaring inconsistency with a pro-life stance. And even for those of us who see this inconsistency, we’re mostly failing to meaningfully change our lifestyles.
God knows, we all need a change of heart, and the renewal of our minds. As with salvation, renewal must come from more than human tools. Tools will always be needed and will be a critical part of movement toward sustainability. We must innovate, but we need something outside of ourselves for salvation. This is true for the salvation of our souls, and also the salvation of the planet.
Usually on April 22, millions of people all over the world do something for Earth Day - plant trees, or participate in a trash pickup. This year, our effect on planet Earth comes more from what we’re not doing. Not driving as much and not pushing industry forward is allowing cleaner air and less carbon emissions. What’s been disastrous for the economy has been a sigh of relief for the planet and reveals the unsustainability of the status quo. Today is an opportunity for us all to reconsider our relationship to the Earth. How do we really want to steward our time and money and creative power when we again have fewer limitations?
Can we re-imagine ourselves not as gods declaring our will on “nature,” but as creatures seeking to live in a right relationship to all of creation?
Most importantly, can we accept the sacrificial love of Christ and in turn love the world sacrificially?