And Jesus, He Wants to Go to Venus

What does Elton John’s song, Levon, have to do with climate change? Not much, really, but the line about Levon’s son, Jesus, going to Venus made me think about Earth’s sister planet. At one time scientists speculated that its thick clouds hid a watery planet where rain fell constantly. Actually, based on space probes that have explored Venus over the past 50 years, we have learned that the dense clouds on the second planet from the sun hide one of the most inhospitable places in our solar system. The average surface temperature on Venus is nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit. The reason? Venus is blanketed by a dense atmosphere consisting primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2). Because it traps heat radiation from the sun like glass in a greenhouse, CO2 is known as a greenhouse gas. With CO2 comprising over 95% of its atmosphere, Venus has a major greenhouse effect resulting in global warming run amok. 
Like Venus, the Earth has CO2 in its atmosphere. Unlike Venus, CO2 comprises only a very small portion of it. In October 2012 the CO2 concentration in earth’s atmosphere was measured at 0.0391% or 391 parts per million (ppm). What concerns many scientists is that this concentration has increased significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century when it was around 280 ppm.

The steam engine, perfected by James Watt in 1778 derived its power by burning coal which also became a key fuel for generating electricity. In 1859, the first commercial oil well was drilled in the U.S. at Titusville, PA. At first there wasn’t much of a market for this black liquid, but it became pure gold after Henry Ford showed us how to burn gasoline by introducing us to his Model T in 1908. These and other developments led to the rapid industrialization of the western world and resulted in the burning of massive amounts of coal, oil and natural gas over the past 200 years. Today, most scientists believe that the CO2 released from the combustion of these fossil fuels is largely responsible for the observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere over this period of time.

According to U.S. EPA’s website, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in the earth’s average temperature. This, in turn, will cause a decrease in snow cover, ice and permafrost which will lead to a rise in sea levels putting many coastal cities at risk. It will also contribute to the acidification of the oceans and will have a significant effect on weather and precipitation patterns. (See, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html.) In other words, things will be different and probably not in a good way.

So what can be done to prevent these consequences? Reducing CO2 emissions is not as easy as slapping pollution control devices on our cars and power plants. Theoretically, CO2 can be broken down into carbon and oxygen with the addition of energy – the reversal of the combustion process. The only genius who has been able to invent a pollution control device that does that is someone called “God.” His invention is called “plants.” Using energy from the sun and a chemical called chlorophyll, these so-called plants use energy from the sun to convert CO2 into carbohydrates and oxygen through a process called “photosynthesis.”

Over thousands of years, God’s pollution control devices “treated” carbon dioxide generated by natural processes (like when animals exhale) creating a rough balance that kept the CO2 concentration fairly stable. The problem is that God’s pollution control devices haven’t been able to keep up with all the extra CO2 currently being produced by mankind. Consequently, the excess CO2 is causing a buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

The only man-made alternative to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less fossil fuel. Short of massive changes to our lifestyles in the developed world, there are presently only two ways to accomplish this: 1) improve energy efficiency so we need less fuel to meet our energy needs, or 2) develop alternative sources of energy that don’t release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There are a number of ways to make this happen, such as voluntary conservation efforts and making greater use of solar, wind and, yes, even nuclear power to meet our electrical needs. Alternatively, we can adopt laws and regulations designed to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions such as by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, by imposing taxes on carbon or by adopting pollution reduction schemes like cap and trade.

Such measures are opposed by climate change skeptics who deny the existence of global warming or at least deny that mankind’s activities have anything to do with it. These skeptics claim that observed warming trends such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap are simply part of the natural cycle and will not be influenced by how much or how little fossil fuels we burn.

These views, of course, run counter to the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (97% according to NASA) that global warming is the result of human activities. (See, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.) But even assuming for the sake of argument that the skeptics are right, think about what would happen if we took steps anyhow to reduce the burning of fossil fuels through conservation measures and using alternative sources of energy. We would have more coal, oil and natural gas to pass on to future generations of mankind. While most of these materials are burned for fuel today, some are used to manufacture products such as lubricants, plastics, pharmaceuticals, dyes and solvents. Conserving these resources now will allow more to be available in the future for these and other uses that have not yet been discovered. Why rush to burn them now, unless our concern is that the energy companies are not making enough profits?

Isn’t conserving what that great inventor, God, asked us to do in the Book of Genesis – to be good stewards of his creation? And Jesus teaches us, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Lk 12: 15, 34.)

My wife says that for Christians, the global warming problem is a little like believing in Jesus. If believing in Jesus will get you to heaven, but you’re not sure there is a heaven, then you should still believe. If it turns out there is no heaven, then believing did you no harm and may have done you some good. But if there is a heaven, then believing could save you. Likewise, if we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to avoid global warming and it turns out that the skeptics are right, at least we will have conserved resources for future generations to use. But if it turns out that the overwhelming opinion of today’s climate scientist is correct, then reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save the planet. 

And when Jesus one day makes plans to return to Earth, he won’t decide to go to Venus because it’s cooler there.

Come Together

Several weeks ago I was able to get one of my blog postings published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  On the one hand, it felt great to get something published.  On the other hand, it made me feel that each and every posting now had to be brilliant enough to be in a newspaper or magazine.  While striving for perfection may be commendable, it should not be at the expense of creating a high hurdle for each new posting to leap.  My objective for this blog is to write.  The Pulitzer is not something I need to worry about for some time to come. 

So what should be the focus of this post?  I have so far written about guns, gay marriage and income inequality.  Americans are incredibly divided over these issues, with some fiercely advocating change and others just as fiercely arguing for maintenance of the status quo.  So rather than address another issue that divides, I thought I would seek to write about a program that all people of good will can support.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recently teamed up with Habitat for Humanity of Greater Pittsburgh to renovate a home in the Borough of Sharpsburg, which is located about 5 miles northeast of the city.  When the renovations are complete, the home will be sold to a family that is currently living in substandard housing conditions in the Northview Heights Projects on Pittsburgh’s North Side. 

Many people have only a vague idea of what Habitat for Humanity does, recalling, perhaps some connection between the organization and former President Jimmy Carter – he and Rosalynn have been frequent volunteers.  Habitat for Humanity’s global mission is to provide decent, affordable housing for people in need.  It fulfills this mission by either building modest new homes or renovating existing homes.  Work on the home is performed by volunteers, often from churches or the faith community. 

Importantly, the program bills itself as “a hand up, not a hand out.”  Eligible families purchase the Habitat homes.  Their down payment consists of performing at least 500 hours of “sweat equity” on the home or other homes in the program.  In addition to instilling a sense of ownership and pride in the families, the work teaches valuable skills that will benefit them in maintaining the home they purchase.  The balance of the cost of the home is paid by the family through an interest-free mortgage.  For example, the family purchasing the Sharpsburg house will make a monthly mortgage payment of between $450 and $550.  Proceeds from mortgage payments are re-invested by Habitat to provide other homes for families in need. 

My church, St. Peter’s in the borough of Brentwood, will participate in a workday at the Habitat house in June.  About a dozen of our parishioners participated in a similar project in Sharpsburg in 2010 and found it to be a rewarding experience.  Significantly, our parishioners represent a wide range of political views from the far right to the far left and many points in between.  Yet this project received wide support, both financial and hands-on, from throughout this broad spectrum of political views. 

So while trying to change the world relative to many issues can create conflict and animosity, perhaps there is at least one area where people of goodwill of all political stripes can come together and accomplish something significant.  I’m not suggesting that anyone give up trying to accomplish change in other areas.  Rather, I’m suggesting that you consider taking a short break from whatever other issues you are passionate about and come together with your local chapter of Habitat for Humanity to create a habitable home for a family striving to improve their lives.  I think that’s change we can all believe in.

Everybody Wants to Be . . ..

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases challenging the constitutionality of laws restricting same-sex couples from marrying. While recent polls show increasing support by Americans for granting same-sex couples the right to marry, there is still a significant percentage of the population that is opposed to the idea. Why are so many Americans opposed to same-sex marriage?  Based on reader’s comments to various news articles on the subject, I think it boils down to two main reasons.  Many are opposed on the basis of their religion.  The other reason seems to be that allowing same-sex unions would negatively impact our society by undercutting “traditional family values.”  What does this mean?  I think some people are concerned that if our society condones same-sex marriage it will send a message to young people that it is completely acceptable to be gay.  If that happens, they fear that everybody will want to be LGBT.  Just imagine people parading through the streets like that scene from Disney’s Aristocats.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI7cIYcnTRU.  But instead of singing, “Everybody wants to be a cat,” they’d be singing, “Everybody wants to be L-G B-T!” 

Regarding the religious basis for opposition, Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians will point first to the Biblical book of Leviticus. However, Leviticus prohibits many things modern society doesn't consider sinful, such as planting your fields with two kinds of seed, wearing clothing woven from two types of material, getting a tattoo, and ordering your steak medium rare. So perhaps the Levitical prohibitions should be examined in the context of Jewish society around 3,000 years ago. These were hard times when war and famine could wipe out thousands of people. In such times it was imperative to produce lots of healthy offspring. Even then, the dangers of inbreeding would have been empirically observed making the Levitical prohibitions against marriage between close relatives understandable. At the same time, any union that planted a man's seed where it could not grow would have been viewed as an offense against a community that placed a high value on having children. This would explain the prohibitions in Leviticus against relations with animals and heterosexual relations during a woman's monthly period when she is infertile. It also would explain why Onan's apparent act of birth control in Genesis, Chapter 38 was "wicked in the Lord's sight" resulting in his being struck down by God. Assuming that men were viewed as the source of life because they provided the seed that merely required fertile ground to produce a child also might explain why Leviticus prohibited relations between men, but did not contain a parallel prohibition for women.  

In the Christian New Testament, Paul's Letter to the Romans and his First Letter to the Corinthians contain passages that echo the Levitical prohibitions against same-sex unions. However, Jesus was entirely silent on the matter through the four New Testament gospels. In contrast, Jesus was extremely critical of divorce. So why is it that Americans willingly accept the prevalence of divorce, yet are reluctant to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry?  

I think it all comes down to the idea of choice. The Baltimore Catechism teaches that sinning requires a person’s choice to do something that is wrong in the eyes of the church.  So classification of same-sex relations as sinful relies on the premise that being LGBT is a choice. In other words, we are all born to be heterosexuals, but some individuals for various reasons choose to desire members of their own sex.  This is the view that has prevailed for thousands of years.  If being LGBT is truly a choice, I wonder why people have continued to make this choice despite being publicly ostracized and in many cases prosecuted as criminals? If it were a choice, such measures should have long ago eliminated LGBTs from the world.  So why are they still here and demanding equal rights no less? 

I believe it is because they have no choice.  Though researchers have not yet discovered a "gay gene," it is beginning to look like sexual orientation is a matter of how some individuals are wired and not a matter of a "lifestyle choice." I am not a scientist but have observed a number of cases where young children appeared to be gay long before they had any notion of what sex was about. Not surprisingly, they came out as gay men many years later.   

So would our society fall apart if same-sex couples had the right to marry?  Would Everybody want to be L-G B-T?  Despite the fact that same-sex marriage is still prohibited in 34 states, most people would agree that the negative consequences associated with being openly LGBT have decreased significantly in American society in the past 25 years.  Nevertheless, in exit polling taken during the last two Presidential elections, the number of respondents that self-identified as LGBT remained very low – less than 5 percent.  That says to me you’re either a cat or you’re not, and your rights should not depend on how God made you.