As I pointed out in this post, it is easy to support the Brethren when they take positions that agree with your ideology. But a faithful Latter-day Saint should support the Brethren even when it is difficult.
The Church has made several statements about the environment in the last few years. The most important is this:
All humankind are stewards over the earth and should gratefully use what God has given, avoid wasting life and resources and use the bounty of the earth to care for the poor and the needy.
God created the earth to provide a place for the human family to learn, progress and improve. God first created the earth and all living things spiritually, and all living things have great worth in His eyes.
The earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations.
Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth ugly offends Him.
I would like to ask readers to read the above statement at least twice before proceeding. My experience is that most people read all kinds of things into that statement that simply are not there.
OK, have you read and re-read that statement? Yes? Then let’s keep on going.
There is a fatal conceit among many people, especially those in urban areas, that the only people who truly care about the environment are those who call themselves “environmentalists.” But the reality is that for millennia people have worked the land and have learned that by using a “prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent” approach they are more likely to survive. Leviticus talks about the Sabbath of the land, i.e., giving the land a rest every seventh year so it can recover and produce more crops over time. Farmers know they must rotate their crops to use the Earth more efficiently.
Ranchers know that if you over-graze your fields the grass will not recover and will be taken over by weeds. Loggers know that you must plant new trees after you cut the older trees down. Men have spent centuries figuring out ways to deal with the “tragedy of the commons,” which is an economic term for the over-use of land or water held in common (think of cattle grazing in a commonly owned field or fish in a publicly owned stream). Most modern-day hunters — who often spend weeks in the wild — are very aware that animals should be hunted for food and that killing too many animals destroys herds for future years.
Man’s struggle throughout time has been to use the Earth’s resources in a way that a)allows for survival and prosperity and b)does not over-use or waste resources. But I think it is essential to point out that just because a person attends a protest rally with a sign saying “save the Earth,” it does not mean that this person actually favors policies that will make the Earth a better place.
It is a basic fact of history that as societies become more prosperous people are more likely to maintain their environments in ways that are “aesthetically pleasing.” Prosperous West Germany was infinitely more clean than poorer and Communist-run East Germany (even though East Germany claimed it was western capitalism that destroyed the environment). The same applies to North and South Korea. Despite the rhetoric of many modern-day environmentalists, the Earth is significantly cleaner today than it was 150 years ago, when coal smoke filled the air throughout the cities and horse manure filled the streets. 150 years ago, running water was scarce and sewage systems rare. Farmers constantly burned the forests to create fields to grow crops, and smoke filled the air. Today, there are more trees than 100 years ago, and there is significant evidence that the world as a whole is actually getting greener as it gets more prosperous.
Technological progress is the single greatest contributor to making the Earth less ugly, which, as the above statement says, offends God.
And here we must all face a reality that contradicts modern-day political correctness: fossil fuels have done infinitely more to clean the environment than they have to destroy it. None of the world we see today — a world that is significantly cleaner, with more trees, less coal and wood smoke, more running water and better sewage systems, would be possible without a portable, easy to use energy source. And fossil fuels provide that energy source. And, contrary to what you may be hearing, the world will not run out of fossil fuels anytime soon. In fact, the sharp decline in gas prices recently has been caused by all of the new oil discoveries.
(I realize that claiming that fossil fuels have done more to clean the environment is a controversial statement, but I stand by it. If you want to object to that claim, I would encourage you to visit this web page and read the first chapter (for free) of the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”).
Now, having written some controversial (but nevertheless true) things, I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong with developing new sources of energy. And in fact I think it is fair to say that 100 years from now we will probably look back at our use of fossil fuels as quaint. What will those energy sources be? Nobody knows for sure, but the more we allow for technological innovation the quicker we will get to the next generation of solutions.
So, let’s return to this part of the Church’s statement:
Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth ugly offends Him.
We face the following realities:
1)The Earth is less ugly and more “aesthetically pleasing” today than any time in recent history, and this has taken place while the Earth has become more prosperous and has been using fossil fuels as the primary source of energy.
2)We are growing more food than ever on the Earth, and this trend has been taking place for hundreds of years. We are taking care of the Earth in ways that sustains future generations by providing them with food that is easier to access and less expensive (as a percentage of income) than ever. This is an obvious way of helping us take care of the “poor and the needy.”
3)Many people who want “the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights” ignore the realities of a cleaner, more prosperous Earth that is producing more food than ever. These people cling to an ideology that claims “man is destroying the Earth.” This ideology has replaced religion for many people in the West. Many of the proponents of this new religion say that population should be limited and that man is the primary enemy of the Earth. This religion, which is extremely common among elites in the United States and Europe, is directly opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 1 Nephi 17:36: “Behold, the Lord hath created the earth that it should be inhabited; and he hath created his children that they should possess it.”
4)Materialism — which leads to overconsumption — is evil and against God’s plan. But notice that the statement also says that “Earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved.” The Earth is to be used and enjoyed, not left behind a fence to please rich “conservationists.” Yes, “some portions are to be preserved,” but preservation does not mean men and women cannot ever visit.
So far this post has not addressed the issue of “climate change.” I accept that the Earth has been slightly warming recently and that man has had something to do with some of that warming. I accept that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. So far, none of the apocalyptic scenarios invented by the people wanting to vindicate “personal desires or avowed rights” (see point 3 above) has actually taken place. But I accept that it is theoretically possible that the increase in CO2 could eventually create an earth that is out of balance and an Earth that would be less pleasing to God. But here is the problem: none of the “solutions” proposed would actually solve this problem, and all of them would make the Earth less prosperous. History has shown that societies in decline make the Earth uglier and less aesthetically pleasing. Notice the use of the words “prudent,” “realistic” and “balanced” in the Church’s statement. Adopting drastic solutions that will make the world poorer are not “prudent,” “realistic” or “balanced.”
The solution is obvious: encourage technological development of new energy sources that will eventually lead us away from fossil fuels. Public policy should be focused on creating an environment for entrepreneurs to flourish and bring to market new inventions. This has been the pattern for cleaning our environment in recent history, and it will be the successful pattern for the future.
In the meantime, latter-day Saints need to read and analyze the Church’s positions based on what they actually say, not on what we wish they would say based on our ideologies and preconceptions. That would end a lot of confusion on this issue and others.
Additional resources:
I would encourage readers to check out this address on the environment and LDS policy from Elder Nash.
The Church has also listed these scriptures and statements as being relevant.