Category Archives: Uncategorized


Actually, make that 401.33.

An average of 401.33 parts per million CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere for the month of April. The first time (in millions of years, if the science is to be believed) that the world has seen this much planet-warming gases in the atmosphere.

When I first started Beloved Planet, I feared that this day might eventually come. But I had no idea it would be here so soon. It was May 2008 and global CO2 concentrations had reached an alarming 385.97. That was more than 100 ppm higher than the levels enjoyed by the creation throughout human civilization. The US National Academy of Sciences – together with the academies of all of the world’s largest and industrialized countries – was warning that these trends were dangerous and had to change.

But year by year, carbon emissions increased at ever-higher rates of growth. Last year, we had one or two days of readings over 400 ppm. But last month, we spent the entire month on the wrong side of that dreaded threshold. And last week, we were above 402 ppm.

So let’s be clear: Greenhouse gases warm the Earth. We have more of them now than ever before in human history. When we drive our cars, fly on airplanes, charge our cellphones – or any number of activities that burn fossil fuels, we add to that blanket of warming gases around the Earth.

And we’re piling on blankets at a faster pace every year. Those blankets are producing weather disruptions – drought, flooding, intense storms and sea level rise – that are harming the poorest, and those who have contributed least to the global problem.

If you’re like most of us, you don’t spend much time thinking about the chemistry of the global atmosphere, and what current greenhouse gas levels might be. Today, it easy: 400+, and counting. What to do? Talk. Vote. Insulate. Retire (that old fridge). Write (your congressman). Visit our “Act!” page and pick an idea. And above all, please pray.

It’s late but not too late. It’s never too late to do what is right.


EPA Carbon Limits Endorsed by 37 Christian Denominations

On February 6, leaders from numerous church and faith communities (including ours) added their voices to the call for the Environmental Protection Agency to implement rules protecting the creation from excessive greenhouse gas emissions from new electric power plants. Among them was Creation Justice Ministries, the creation-care voice of 37 Christian denominations. One notable contribution by CJM was their reasonable observation that creating huge quantities of CO2 from coal plants, and then injecting it into the ground (carbon capture & storage, or CCS) is not a riskless idea, and should not be regarded as a permanent solution without further study.

CJM was represented by Tricia Bruckbauer; here is her testimony:

Creation Justice Ministries

My name is Tricia Bruckbauer and I am here on behalf of Creation Justice Ministries. We represent 37 Christian denominations and their policies relating to creation care. We are a diverse group from mainline Protestants to Baptists, and Orthodox traditions to evangelicals. One of the few things that we all agree on is the need to care for God’s planet and seek justice for those being harmed by environmental carelessness.

triciaI sat in this seat a few months ago to comment on carbon regulations for existing power plants. I am here today to offer our faith community’s response to the rule on new power plants. We view climate change as the moral issue of our time, and feel we have an obligation to reverse the implications of our careless actions. As Christians, we are called to be stewards of the land that was gifted to us and ensure that we leave this planet better for the next generation.

While we have a responsibility to the planet and to honor and maintain the great gifts of clean water, air and land, we also are called to care for our neighbors. Climate change disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations such as communities of color, low-income communities, women, and children. We must ensure that we are doing all that we can to improve the health and quality of life of our neighbors that generally contribute the least to pollution and our changing climate, but suffer the most. Continue reading

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh

By Rev. Mitchell Hescox

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

Blessings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Mitch Hescox, President of Evangelical Environmental Network

Mitchell Hescox, President of Evangelical Environmental Network

As a lifelong Republican and an evangelical pro-life clergyman who pastored a local congregation for almost 20 years, spent fourteen years working in the coal industry, and now leads one of the oldest creation care ministries, I ask you to refrain from your harmful rhetoric on climate change. It is simply wrong.

Recently, you stated that “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming.” Nothing could be further from truth.

You made this false claim as part of a rhetorical sleight of hand wherein you posited a straw-man position, which you then defeated, saying that only God has the power to destroy his creation. But in “winning” such a false argument, you take people further from the truth. I am aware of no one who is saying that human-induced climate change will completely destroy the earth.

From the beginning we were created to be God’s stewards or caretakers of His creation; we were given the freedom to care for it and for each other, or go our own way and selfishly look to our own interests and desires. Sadly, human history shows us that too often we have chosen the latter.

Today, human-induced climate change works against our call to love others and care for God’s creation. Its impacts on creation are already a threat to our children and therefore a pro-life concern. Overcoming climate change is an act of discipleship, stewarding what was created for and through Jesus, the ChristContinue reading

So Much Coal: Why Not Use It?

“We have 250 years of coal. Why the heck wouldn’t we use it?”  Mitt Romney, August 16, 2012
Every so often, a questiongets asked that simply demands an answer.  Especially so when the asker may soon become President of the United States.
Now we recognize that this is a bit ticklish. Democrats, Independents and Republicans all read the Clothesline Report.  And we have done our best to remain politically neutral. In the past I’ve been criticized for gushing over a Republican congressman’s stance on carbon pricing. And I’ve been hauled off to jail for protesting the policies of a Democratic president. So maybe I’ve earned the right to give an honest answer to a Republican’s question.
Earth sciencetells us that for the last two million years, the earth has known two principal conditions: ice ages, and interglacial. During ice ages, there were about 440 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere; in the nice warm interglacial periods, atmospheric CO2 increased to 660 billion tons.  It usually hasn’t lingered too long in the middle, but switched back and forth every 100,000 years, or so.
440 billion tons and it’s cold; 660 billion tons and it’s warm – warm like the world our ancestors were born into, and in which human civilization flourished. Things fluctuated from time to time, but the range was stable enough to support complex societies like ours.
But that all began to change in the mid-18th century, when mankind started burning coal, and then oil & gas. Furthermore, armed with the power of fossil fuels, humankind began mowing down the carbon-rich forests as well.  Now, instead of 660 billion tons of CO2 in the air, there are more than 880 billion tons. For millions of years, the atmosphere has never held this much carbon – double the level of the ice ages. In fact, since 1750, we’ve taken the increase in carbon since the ice ages, and doubled it again.
And now, an American presidential candidate wants to know: Why not produce and burn all our remaining reserves of coal?
There was once a Republican president who figured that politicians could use some help with scientific questions. So Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences. For the last century and a half, the NAS has been digesting state-of-the-art science for our nation’s leaders.  Today, the NAS has some answersfor Mr. Romney:
“The higher the total CO2 emitted,” says the latest NAS report, “and the higher the resulting atmospheric concentration, the higher the warming will be for the next thousand years.” They illustrate the relationship between heating the globe and CO2 concentration in this graph:
National Academy: The more CO2 emissions, the hotter the earth will be.
The implications of the NAS graph are clear: the earth is already going to get much warmer, but the extent of the heating will depend on how much more carbon we burn.  
And how much more CO2 would result from all that U.S. coal? Well, here’s a bit of hypothetical math. The earth went into the Industrial Revolution with 660 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind has raised that level to 885 billion tons today, a level not seen on earth in millions of years.
Now let’s suppose – for the sake of illustration – that the whole world stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow – cold turkey. Not one gasoline engine; not one gas stove; not one coal mine anywhere – except only American coal mines. And we produced all that coal, as Mr. Romney suggested. Then what? The following table tells the hypothetical story:

The earth’s atmosphere would then be clogged with more than 1.2 trillion tons of CO2. That’s about double the pre-industrial level, and enough, according to the NAS, to raise global heat by 6.1oF. This isn’t a projection or a scientific model. It’s accounting.

What does 6.1oF more heat mean for the earth?  Here again, we look to the NAS for insight. They tell us:
  • Global crop yields would decrease by 20-50%, based on current farming practices.
  • 90% of summers would be hotter than the hottest 5% of summers in the 20th century.
  • In the U.S. West, wild fires would be 6 to 12 times larger than they are today.
  • The Greenland Ice Sheet would shrink and eventually disappear, raising sea levels by 13-24 feet.
  • And although the NAS doesn’t mention it, New York would feel like Huntsville, AL; Huntsville would feel like Waco, TX; and Waco would feel downright infernal.
U.S. coal alone would crank up the earth’s heat by 6.1F.
I know all this sounds scary. But it’s not nearly scary enough. Remember, our hypothetical case assumed that the whole world immediately stops using all fossil fuels except U.S. coal. In fact, American coal accounts for only 30% of global CO2 emissions.  The remaining 70% – from Canadian tars sands oil, to Saudi light crude, to Chinese coal mines and American shale gas – aren’t going away anytime soon.  In fact, the more recklessly an American president insists on his right to foul the global atmosphere for short-term national gain, surely the more we must expect other nations to do the same.
So, why shouldn’t we use all our American coal? Maybe the question shouldn’t be directed to cheering supporters at a campaign stop. Instead, it might be wise to ask the researchers at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The greatest Republican ever – and perhaps the greatest president – established them for this very reason.
Thanks for reading, and may God bless you.
J. Elwood

Arctic Ice Melt: The U.N. Scientists Were Wrong!

Have you ever wondered if maybe those scientists have gotten it all wrong? 
The climate warnings have been so dire, but the costs of responding are so great. Things we take for granted – spacious suburban homes, powerful performance vehicles, the mobility to travel at will, fresh food flown in from distant sources – would certainly have to change. If not, our kids would inherit a severely damaged world, and their kids might not inherit much of anything at all.
But maybe it’s all alarmism. Even scientists can get things wrong. Why should we change our lifestyle because of speculative computer models?
In fact, they did get things wrong. Back in 2007 the U.N.’s climate science panel (called the IPCC) issued its 4thAssessment Report, and it was alarming. The globe was heating up, they said. Sea levels were rising. Extreme weather events like floods and droughts were increasing, and the polar ice was melting. It would all result in global hunger, displacement of coastal communities, mass human migration, conflicts over shrinking resources and the loss of terrestrial and marine species.
If we believed them, the future looked grim, unless the nations of the earth acted promptly to protect the creation, and restore climate balances. 
But Americans are not easily pushed around – not by scientists, and certainly not by technocrats at the U.N. Back then, only 8% of us believed that climate change wasn’t happening at all; but by the next year, the number had jumped to 11%, and then 16%. By 2010, fully 19% of us believed climate change would never happen.
Perhaps the scientists had it all wrong. 
A couple of days ago, we reported on one way they did get it wrong. In 2007, the IPCC projected that as early as 2044 the Arctic could lose a whopping 2.1 million km2 of sea ice. Here’ s the scary graph they gave us:
Well, in fact, the Arctic has been melting.  Here’s the amount of Arctic sea ice cover on August 15 over the last 33 years, measured daily by satellites for the National Snow & Ice Data Center:
And,as I said, the U.N. scientists got their projections all wrong. Here’s a comparison of the IPCC projections to what has actually happened since 2000:
As you can see, the Arctic isn’t responding at all the way the IPCC said it would. In fact, we’re melting the Arctic four times faster than the fastest estimate they made in 2007. And if you look at the alarming trends from the last few years – which may or may not predict a new trajectory – Arctic melting may now be a runaway train. The consequences for faster global warming, melting of the Greenland ice sheet, accelerated global sea level rise, and even slowing the climate-stabilizing ocean conveyer currents are not fully known. But let’s not be blind: There will be consequences.
Scientists are fallible. Their models often miss something important.  At first, we take comfort from this. But then the dreadful reality hits us: You can be wrong in more ways than one.
The earth hasn’t seen this much earth-warming CO2in the atmosphere for millions of years. And those scientists have mostly been predicting slow, steady global warming. Bad, no doubt, but largely a problem for the distant future – something to be solved after we balance the budget, reduce unemployment, or counter nuclear threats from rogue states.
But maybe they’re wrong. They didn’t see how fast we’d lose the Arctic ice. They didn’t see the extent of devastating droughts and wildfires in the American and Russian breadbaskets. They didn’t see the pace of food cost increases and the rapid spread of global hunger.
How do we respond to these challenges? We may urge our leaders to prioritize climate action. We may take a serious look at our own carbon footprint, and make changes to reduce our own harm. We may begin the conversationamong our friends, co-workers and churches.
But whatever we do, let’s not make the mistake of finding comfort in the failure of the experts to predict the future. More likely than not, the surprises will be unpleasant. My kids – and yours – are counting on us.
Thanks for reading, and may God bless you.
J. Elwood

Warnings from the Top of the World

Let’s face it: We don’t care all that much about sea ice.
We care about our kid’s job, or our GPA in college. We care about our favorite sports team, or who’s winning the election. We care about the noisy neighbors, or the worsening traffic on our commute.
But sea ice? Hardly on the radar screen, right?
Today’s ice v. normal (orange line)
And that’s a pity, because scientists at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) tell us that it’s more important to our future – and our kids’ futures – than most things we worry about.
Bright white ice used to cover most of the Arctic, from Siberia to Greenland, even in midsummer.  But it’s been shrinking, year by year, as the earth warms. And now the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) tells us that this year will be a new record for ice shrinkage by a wide margin. The last record was set in 2007, and this year’s ice melt is way ahead of that.
We might have thought that maybe this would a good thing. After all, mariners have been trying for ages to open the Northwest Passage, and avoid those long voyages through warmer southern waters.  Just last week, a Chinese ship docked in Iceland, after taking the shortcut along the northern coast of Russia.
“To our astonishment … most part of the Northern Sea Route is open,” expedition leader Huigen Yang told Reuters upon arrival. The Chinese had expected much more ice, and now plan to return by a more direct route closer to the North Pole.
But there is a problem in all this, according to the NAS. All that former bright white ice was really reflective, sending about 60% of the energy from the sun’s rays back out into space. By contrast, ocean water is really dark, and it reflects only about 10% of the sun’s energy that hits it. The remaining 90% gets absorbed, and warms the oceans. The more the Earth warms, the Polar Regions become more energy-absorbent, generating even more warmth.  That’s why small changes in the Earth’s systems sometimes turn into big changes for the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that this would happen back in 2007. But many people predicted they’d be way off.  In fact, they were. But like so many scientific predictions regarding the damage to the Earth from climate change, they were wrong in the wrong way. Actual sea ice melting is far worse than the IPCC predicted. The IPCC warned that Arctic sea ice cover could shrink to about 7.0 million square km by this time. In fact, we’re at 5.09 million square km as I write this, and falling.
The U.N. IPCC was wrong: It’s much worse
And today, there’s more deep-blue absorbent water in the Arctic than there was on average in the period 1979-2000 by an area roughly the size of India. For the Earth’s climate, it’s as though we’ve taken an area called home by over one billion people, and repainted the entire surface from reflective white to limousine-black — to bake in the sun all day long.
Whatever the world’s nations decide to do in the year ahead, that India-sized black limo will again be baking in the Arctic sun next summer, only it will be bigger, and hotter.  That’s why we can’t afford to get around to listening to the climate scientists after our immediate concerns – the recession, the pennant race, the election, or whatever – are resolved.
Breaking records: more open water than ever
For your own sake, and for your kids, the time to demand climate action is now.  Our leaders will only do what we demand that they do. Why not take a moment, and make your voice heard
Thanks for reading, and for speaking out. And may God bless you.
J. Elwood

Red Sky at Night: Signs of the Times

It can be deadly to misread the signs of the times. 
Consider the Pharisees in St. Mathew’s Gospel: They came to Jesus demanding a sign from heaven.  The Lord responded with a version of the old mariner’s rhyme: 
“You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky” – red sky at morning, sailors take warning – “but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” No sign will be given you.
In the near term, they got their revenge: Within a year, the Pharisees had seen Jesus hung on a cross. But within a generation, more than a million of them perished by the Roman sword, their temple destroyed, their holy city laid waste, and virtually all survivors dispersed to the furthest reaches of the Empire. If only they had read the signs all around them….
But signs of the times are much harder to read without the benefit of hindsight, aren’t they? Of course we abhorred the crimes at Wounded Knee. Who would support Apartheid? Who wouldn’t have marched with Dr. Martin Luther King? 
But smack in the middle of things, it’s much harder, isn’t it? The earth seems to be sending us some ominous signs today.  Until recently, we didn’t pay much attention. But – just maybe – the American people are beginning to read them accurately.  Consider:
  • The American West is seeing its second mega-drought in a decade. The 2000-2004 one was worse than the legendary 1930’s Dust Bowl, and the current one is even worse than that. 
  • In the last 1,200 years, only two other megadroughts have been like these last two.
  • June 2012 saw 3,200 heat records broken in the U.S.
  • July was worse: the hottest single month ever recorded in the U.S. (since recordkeeping began in 1895). It was 3.3 degrees hotter than the average from the last century.
  • Globally, July was the 4th hottest month ever. 
  • It didn’t just last for a month. The prior 12 months were the hottest annual period ever recorded in the U.S.
  • And globally, July marked the 329th consecutive month with average temperatures above last century’s average.
  • 62% of the U.S. is now in drought.
  • As a result of projected shortages, global food prices jumped 6% in July, corn is up 23%, and wheat rose 19%. This is the third food price shock in 5 years, and the poorest countries are now reeling from almost chronic food insecurity.
  • Arctic sea ice in July was the second-lowest July ever recorded.
  • In July, 97% of Greenland’s ice sheet experienced melting, up from around 50% maximum most summers.  And Greenland’s Petermann Glacier lost an iceberg about the size of Manhattan last month, the second massive calving since 2010.
  • Some researchers are now warning that by the end of this century, the 2000-2004 drought might be remembered as “a period of abnormal wetness.” In other words, the American West and Midwest would be largely a desert.
U.S. drought damage has pushed corn prices up 23%
What should we do with all these climate signs? 
Climate scientists generally exercise great caution in relating specific weather events to global climate change. They remind us not to make rash connections between a given local storm or drought and worldwide climate trends. But these days, scientists are increasingly willing to make the connection that is intuitive – if not always scientifically precise – to many laypeople. 
For example, scientistsanalyzing the current drought in the American West wrote last week:  “Although we do not attribute any single event to global warming, the severity of both the 2000-2004 drought and the current one is consistent with simulations accounting for warming from increased greenhouse gases.”
And a few months ago, prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen went even further, writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:  “We can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.”
Scientists are seldom given to rash statements. These are about as strong as you can get.
But it turns out that ordinary people are making the connections as well.  Gallupfound this year that Americans who think “global warming will never happen” have fallen from a high of 19% in 2010 to just 15% this year. 76% of us think that it’s already happening, or will in our lifetime.  55% say the media underestimates the dangers, or reports them accurately.  53% now say that harmful climate change results from human activities. Only 7% of Americans doubt that most scientists believe global warming is happening.
Now, in fairness, the opinion trends in the last few years have been modest. They are reversing the climate skepticism that took off in 2008, when the recession stoked our national fears and consumed most of our attention. And there are notable differences depending on party loyalties. But on the whole, it looks like more and more Americans are beginning to read the signs of the times.
There is much at stake, just as there was in Jerusalem two thousand years ago. Few of us can imagine our entire world falling apart, nor could they in the time of Christ. But the earth is now sending us some strong warning signals.
Will we read the signs of the times? For the sake of our Father’s world, and all who depend on its natural systems, let us pray that we will.
Thanks for reading, and may God bless you.
J. Elwood