It’s 2030. You pocket your car keys to go to the food dispensary and grab your weekly ration of bread and vegetables supplied by the state. But as you turn the keys to start your car, an error code flashes across the windshield; you’ve exceeded your maximum carbon consumption for the month and, as such, aren’t allowed to drive.
1. Climate Change
The more I study this socially-just fight against climate change, the more I reject it. I reject it because it’s an evil dogma—there’s nothing virtuous or benevolent about this battle. It’s not a struggle for survival; it’s not an altruistic defence against an enemy; it’s a clear and present bid to capitalize on people’s terror and conquer even more power than what we already submit to.
It is challenging to repel the environmentalist’s narrative, not because facts aren’t on our side, but because the radical left cultivated a culture dismissing all concerns about fighting climate change as cruel. That is, if I were to say, “I’m not sure we have to fight climate change,” I’m immediately ridiculed as ridiculous, preposterous, even insane. Our opponents in this arena make it sound like we want the planet to burn up in a cataclysmic apocalypse (which, by the way, is going to happen!).
But for the most part, that strategy of ridicule has worked pretty well for our adversaries. For fear of being dragged through the mud as a “dirty, oil-pumping, capitalist, who wants to pollute our cities, kill our children, and satisfy his greed,” we tend to stay pretty quiet when listening to the preaching of environmentalists; I don't think we can do so any longer.
There are numerous reasons I reject the environmentalist movement, but my most fundamental contention is that it’s predicated on the idea that man is made for the Earth and not that the Earth is made for man.
Of course, I think the powerful tycoons who fund these protests and lobbyists couldn't care less about whether there is 419 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or 420 ppm. They, like everyone else, want power. But for the moment, let’s forget about those manipulators in the shadows and focus solely on those who make the globe their god.
Suppose there was an ancient redwood, beautiful and majestic both in its size and solitude. Further, suppose that I had to construct a pipeline right where the redwood is to deliver oil to a hospital that’s treating only one critical patient.
All else equal, should I cut down the tree to get the oil to the hospital and save the life?
Of course I should! Any hesitation in doing so or argument in opposition displays a tragic misunderstanding of human value.
We have an obligation to treat life as sacred because it is! It would be a different argument if cutting down the tree was immoral, but it’s not, and neither is drilling for oil. Thus, how could we not cut down a tree—any tree—in exchange for saving a life? The man is eternal and will live forever; he’s special, a being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The tree, no matter how old or famous, never was.
I used that argument to display the overarching truth that people are more valuable than bark. One man is more valuable than the entire Amazon (Matthew 10:29-30). One child is worth drilling all of the oil in Alberta. Protesters protest pipelines…do they not realize it’s oil that’s used to keep incubators running, that it’s employed to keep our houses warm, and our stoves cooking? Don’t they understand that it’s oil that is harnessed to power our planet, saving people from harsh climates and harsher men?
In fact, I think they do. I’m confident they understand the importance of oil and energy as a whole. Which only leaves us wondering, “What objectives do they pursue, and should we prepare for a return to the primitive?"
Thank you for reading! If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here for free!
If you'd like to support our site and the work we do, click here! Thank you so much for your kind generosity!