Protection of the Environment

IN THE LAST TWO POSTINGS, we have reflected upon the Scriptural view of nature and the problems that occur when man exploits nature, when, heedless of moral norms, he puts nature to the rack or through the grist mill. Though the Church is not opposed to science and technology, it is opposed to what we might call scientism or technologism, i.e., the use of science and technology unbounded by the moral law and heedless of nature as a whole or human nature in particular.

As the world continues its economic development, care for the environment presents itself as a challenge for all humankind.  Our earthly environment "is a matter of a common and universal duty," it is one that truly involves the common good of humanity.  No one is free to disregard the moral use of nature and its resources.  In the words of John Paul II quoted by the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, it is our common obligation to prevent "anyone from using 'with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate--animals, plants, the natural elements--simply as one wishes, according to one's own economic needs.'"

Whether we like it or not, this presents itself as an international problem requiring international solutions.  What good is it for the United States to place strict emission standards on its own manufacturing plants to our own economic disadvantage while China's plants belch out foul poisons into earth's atmosphere?   What good is it for us to restrict the harvest of our forests, while we watch the Amazon's forests denuded?

One must also not forget that the use of the world and its resources today, affects the life of those who come after us.  If we are irresponsible now,  "After-comers" will not be able to "guess the beauty been."

Since the problems regarding the environment are global, they require global solutions.

As the Compendium notes:

Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. "We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family." This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.

(Compendium, No. 467) (quoting Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 266)

The problem can only be handled through some sort of juridical construct, while it cannot be limited to that.  Perhaps as important as relying upon juridical means is the need to inculcate a "sense of responsibility as well as an effective change of mentality and lifestyle" that is more in keeping with environmental or ecological sensitivity.  (Compendium, No. 468)

Market forces are in a considerable degree inadequate to handle the problem. The reason for this is that economic interests are to a great degree opposed to environmental interests.  They live in tension. 

An economy respectful of the environment will not have the maximization of profits as its only objective, because environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces.[993] Every country, in particular developed countries, must be aware of the urgent obligation to reconsider the way that natural goods are being used. Seeking innovative ways to reduce the environmental impact of production and consumption of goods should be effectively encouraged.

(Compendium, No. 470)

While the juridical construct does not necessarily require a global juridical institution--a global EPA in fact sounds positively frightening--it does require, at minimum, some sort of global or international cooperation and recognition of the problem and its commonality.  

It is important that the international community draw up uniform rules that will allow States to exercise more effective control over the various activities that have negative effects on the environment and to protect ecosystems by preventing the risk of accidents.

(Compendium, No. 468).  At the very minimum, the various states should actively endeavor within their own territories "to prevent destruction of the atmosphere and biosphere, by carefully monitoring, among other things, the impact of new technological or scientific advances . . . [and] insuring that its citizens are not exposed to dangerous pollutants or toxic wastes."  (Compendium, No. 468) (quoting JPII, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace)

Though addressing environmental issues is a responsibility that cannot be shirked, it presents a complex problem that requires an interdisciplinary approach, one which invokes sciences of all kinds, industries of all kinds, government, and ecological groups.  Decisions must sometimes be made when the data are not clear, when there is a state of uncertainty as to the data's interpretation.  An example that may be cited is whether there is global warming, and, if so, whether it is natural or man made, and, if man made, how much of it is attributable to controllable human causes.  Sometimes the scientific data and the interpretation of that data are complicated by hidden agendas, by irresponsible propaganda, by self-interest and self-regard.

In the light of uncertainty or probabilities, a "precautionary principle" may be adopted as a guide to practical, yet prudent, action:

The authorities called to make decisions concerning health and environmental risks sometimes find themselves facing a situation in which available scientific data are contradictory or quantitatively scarce. It may then be appropriate to base evaluations on the “precautionary principle”, which does not mean applying rules but certain guidelines aimed at managing the situation of uncertainty. This shows the need for making temporary decisions that may be modified on the basis of new facts that eventually become known. Such decisions must be proportional with respect to provisions already taken for other risks. Prudent policies, based on the precautionary principle require that decisions be based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives, including the decision not to intervene. This precautionary approach is connected with the need to encourage every effort for acquiring more thorough knowledge, in the full awareness that science is not able to come to quick conclusions about the absence of risk. The circumstances of uncertainty and provisional solutions make it particularly important that the decision-making process be transparent.

(Compendium, No. 469)

The problem requires rational solutions, solutions based upon dispassionate assessment of the environmental problem, of its causes, of possible cures.  It must take into consider a variety of factors, including: nature itself, the kind of resource involved (whether renewable or non-renewable), economic and market factors, industrial interests, cultural idiosyncrasies,* the just imposition of costs associated with environmental restrictions, the divergence between rich nations and the poor, with the urgency of developing the wealth of the latter, alternatives that may be available, the current state of science or technology.

__________________________________________________
*The Compendium has the following to say:

The relationship of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources deserves particular attention, since it is a fundamental expression of their identity. Due to powerful agro-industrial interests or the powerful processes of assimilation and urbanization, many of these peoples have already lost or risk losing the lands on which they live, lands tied to the very meaning of their existence. The rights of indigenous peoples must be appropriately protected. These peoples offer an example of a life lived in harmony with the environment that they have come to know well and to preserve.[1000] Their extraordinary experience, which is an irreplaceable resource for all humanity, runs the risk of being lost together with the environment from which they originate.

(Compendium, No. 471) Sometimes the "beauty been" involves the life of indigenous peoples whose tie to the land and appreciation of nature is something that warrants preservation.

A Theological Ecology

WHILE IN THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE MAN is given dominion over all things, it is a "pretension" to think that this is an "unconditional dominion" that may be "heedless of any moral considerations." All human activity, including that activity that relates to how man deals with his environment, is subject to moral consideration. There is no realm in which man can act without regard to morality.

There is without doubt a tendency in man to use, or perhaps better, exploit those natural resources over which he gains control. This tendency has been exacerbated, even institutionalized, as the result of historical and cultural process. Necessarily, this can affect his environment, as he leaves the detritus as it were of his exploitation.

Modernly, as a result of both the increase in the population of man and his ability better to exploit the natural world through technology, we confront a serious threat to our environment, even a "critical point" in our history which mandates action. (Compendium, No. 461) "Nature appears as an instrument in the hands of man, a reality that he must constantly manipulate, especially by means of technology." (Compendium, No. 462)

Particularly during the Industrial Revolution, man's dominion over nature was given a "reductionist conception," one largely predicated upon a false supposition that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources [were] available," that it was "possible to renew them quickly," and that "negative effects of the exploitation [could] be easily absorbed." (Compendium, No. 462)  We were blinded to the effects of the constant "strokes of havoc," our constant hacking and racking on, hewing on and delving into, the environment, not unlike those who felled Gerard Manley Hopkins's "Binsey Poplars":

MY aspens dear, whose airy cages quelled,
Quelled or quenched in leaves the leaping sun,
All felled, felled, are all felled;
Of a fresh and following folded rank
Not spared, not one
That dandled a sandalled
Shadow that swam or sank
On meadow and river and wind-wandering weed-winding bank.
O if we but knew what we do
When we delve or hew --
Hack and rack the growing green!
Since country is so tender
To touch, her being só slender,
That, like this sleek and seeing ball
But a prick will make no eye at all,
Where we, even where we mean
To mend her we end her,
When we hew or delve:
After-comers cannot guess the beauty been.
Ten or twelve, only ten or twelve
Strokes of havoc únselve
The sweet especial scene,
Rural scene, a rural scene,
Sweet especial rural scene.

Perhaps one of the most egregious instances of this reckless neglect of nature, one typical of what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is referring to, is related by Donald Culross Peattie in his book, A Natural History of North American Trees, when he describes the exploitation of the beautiful pecan trees of Texas:

Until almost the turn of the last century, pecans reached the market largely from wild trees. The harvesting methods in early times consisted in nothing less heroic and criminal than cutting down gigantic specimens--the bigger the better--and setting boys to gather the nuts from the branches of the fallen giants. It seemed to the pioneer then, as it did to every American, that the forests of this country were inexhaustible. Thus it came about that the wild Pecan tree had become rare before men began to realize how much was lost.*

 Underlying this reckless attitude was the mechanistic view of nature ushered in by the Enlightenment, a utilitarian ethic which measured everything in terms of cost and benefit, and the consumerism mentality which modernly has reached absurd proportions.  Through both these philosophical, historical, cultural, and individual attitudes, we have alienated ourselves from our environment.  "Primacy is given to doing and having rather to being, and this causes serious forms of human alienation."  (Compendium, No. 462).

The problem is not science or technology itself; it is rather what the Church in the Compendium calls "scientism and technocratic ideologies" that cause the problem of man's alienation from his environment and the lack of prudence, indeed even reckless irresponsibility, in exploiting the goods of the earth.

While recognizing the serious environmental problems confronting man, the Church warns us of going overboard in our reactions.  We see this attitude in many environmentalists, in many intellectual leaders of the "green" parties and "New Agers." In addressing the problem, there is a line we ought not to cross.  We must not "absolutize nature and place it above the dignity of the human person himself."   Indeed, there is a notable tendency in many ecologically-concerned groups to "divinize nature or the earth."  (Compendium, No. 463)

As the Compendium puts it:

The Magisterium finds the motivation for its opposition to a concept of the environment based on ecocentrism and biocentrism in the fact that "it is being proposed that the ontological and axiological difference between men and other living beings be eliminated, since the biosphere is considered a biotic unity of undifferentiated value. Thus man's superior responsibility can be eliminated in favor of the egalitarian consideration of the 'dignity' of all living beings."**

(Compendium, No. 463)  Unless moderated, the reaction to the past exploitation of nature may be as foolish and as detrimental as the exploitation itself.  In a fool's bargain, we will be trading one foolishness for another foolishness.

What is worse is the modern tendency to address this problem without reference to God.  The loss in a belief in the doctrine of Creation will lead to confusion and errors in judgment.

A vision of man and things that is sundered from any reference to the transcendent has led to the rejection of the concept of creation and to the attribution of a completely independent existence to man and nature. The bonds that unite the world to God have thus been broken. This rupture has also resulted in separating man from the world and, more radically, has impoverished man's very identity. Human beings find themselves thinking that they are foreign to the environmental context in which they live. The consequences resulting from this are all too clear: "it is the relationship man has with God that determines his relationship with his fellow men and with his environment. This is why Christian culture has always recognized the creatures that surround man as also gifts of God to be nurtured and safeguarded with a sense of gratitude to the Creator. Benedictine and Franciscan spirituality in particular has witnessed to this sort of kinship of man with his creaturely environment, fostering in him an attitude of respect for every reality of the surrounding world." There is a need to place ever greater emphasis on the intimate connection between environmental ecology and "human ecology."***

(Compendium, No. 464)**

While the Church warns of philosophical and ideological errors in the matter of man and his environment, she also quite strongly advocates efforts at re-injecting a moral component into our use and exploitation of natural resources so that their use may be responsible and may accord with principles of just use

The Magisterium underscores human responsibility for the preservation of a sound and healthy environment for all. "If humanity today succeeds in combining the new scientific capacities with a strong ethical dimension, it will certainly be able to promote the environment as a home and a resource for man and for all men, and will be able to eliminate the causes of pollution and to guarantee adequate conditions of hygiene and health for small groups as well as for vast human settlements. Technology that pollutes can also cleanse, production that amasses can also distribute justly, on condition that the ethic of respect for life and human dignity, for the rights of today's generations and those to come, prevails."**

(Compendium, No. 465)

There is a lot of lost time man must make up for.  "Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures . . . "

__________________________________________
*Donald Culross Peattie, A Natural History of North American Trees (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007), 181.
**The Compendium here quotes from John Paul II, Address to participants in a convention on "The Environment and Health" dated March 24, 1997.
*** The term "human ecology" is derived from John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus, 38.

Safeguarding the Environment, Biblical Underpinnings

GOD, WHOSE ESSENCE IS TO BE, is radically different from the created world, whose being is contingent and utterly reliant both for its existence and its continued existence on God.* God is the beginning and end of all things outside of himself; he is therefore the first cause and their final cause. The entire world, including man which is a part of it, looks to God for its existence and its purpose. God is its creator and its provider.

Our radical dependence upon God helps us see all creation as a gift, as a gift that is governed by God in his providence. Nature is therefore, more or less, a reflection of God's nature. From the lowest (God is my rock, tsur, צוּר, e.g., Psalm 18:2) to the highest (man is God's "image," the tzelem elohim, צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎‎). Creation therefore participates in God's Logos, his ratio. Man, who participates in God's ratio in a preeminent degree, is able to see nature as "the word of God's creative action," and not "as a dangerous adversary." It is not man against nature, but man in nature.

Man, who is made in God's image in a manner entirely distinct from the rest of nature, therefore has a special responsibility to it. Indeed, Christians believe that the Lord "entrusted all of creation to [man's] responsibility, charging [man] to care for its harmony and development. (Cf. 1:26-30)." (Compendium, No. 451) We are therefore trustees, and we hold the world in trust, answerable for its use to God and to our fellows.

The world is good, even very good. (Cf. Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). This is so fundamental that Christianity is incomprehensible without this notion. And man is placed at the summit of the good which is creation, so that men and women share in a particularly striking and unique way in God's ratio, his goodness. There is reason outside man and reason within man, both of which reflect the eternal ratio of God.

Man has therefore responsibility to this great good, this great gift. While he has been given dominion over it, it is not a dominion that may be exercised recklessly, negligently, without regard to the God who gave him such dominion. He is therefore more akin to a custodian or caretaker over nature than a tyrannous Lord over it. The world is used "in dialogue with God," not independent from God. (Compendium, No. 452.)

Only in dialogue with God does the human being find his truth, from which he draws inspiration and norms to make plans for the future of the world, which is the garden that God has given him to keep and till (cf. Gen 2: 15). Not even sin could remove this duty, although it weighed down this exalted work with pain and suffering (cf. Gen 3:17-19).

(Compendium, No. 452)

Creation is therefore in a serious way sacred to man. It is a reflection of God's goodness. It is a gift given to man. It is one over which God has a sacred duty. For this reason, creation is always seen as something which manifests, indeed induces praise, to God. It is something which God himself does not spurn, and indeed brought into himself in Christ. It is something which God has used as a vehicle, a medium of the supernatural life in the sacraments. It is something which He has redeemed through his Cross, and which seeks fulfillment in Christ's second coming.

A Christian, in particular, must take a sacramental view of nature. Jesus, we believe, is God incarnate in man, and so God himself has assumed into His very heart, through the Son, man, who is the apex, and so custodian and representative of all nature. "Nature, which was created in the Word, is, by the same Word made flesh, reconciled to God and given new peace." (Compendium, No. 454)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven.

(Col. 1:15-20)

For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

(Rom. 8:19-23)

For the believer, "[t]he whole of creation participates in the renewal flowing from the Lord's Paschal Mystery," so that "nothing stands outside this salvation." (Compendium, No. 455)

The Biblical view of nature, therefore, is radically different from the scientific "put-nature-on-the-rack" attitude. Similarly, it is radically different from the exploitative view of the capitalist, for whom nature is but so much raw material which begs for exploitation. While the Biblical view does not spurn human efforts at scientific study of nature or exploitation of nature for man's sake, it does suggest limits upon or rules that should order such efforts. It is neither obscurantist nor wed to nature worship.**

As the Compendium puts it:

The biblical vision inspires the behavior of Christians in relation to their use of the earth, and also with regard to the advances of science and technology. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that man "judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind." The Council Fathers recognized the progress made thanks to the tireless application of human genius down the centuries, whether in the empirical sciences, the technological disciplines or the liberal arts. Today, "especially with the help of science and technology, man has extended his mastery over nearly the whole of nature and continues to do so."

(Compendium, No. 456)

The Church is therefore hardly negative to science or to proper development and use of the world's resources; however, she emphasizes that the use of the world's resources and the application of his mind and his hands must be done responsibly: under God and with view to the common good of mankind:

For man, "created in God's image, received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all that it contains, and to govern the world with justice and holiness, a mandate to relate himself and the totality of things to him who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth. [The Council teaches that] throughout the course of the centuries, men have labored to better the circumstances of their lives through a monumental amount of individual and collective effort. To believers, this point is settled: considered in itself, this human activity accords with God's will."

(Compendium, No. 456) (quoting VII, GS, 34)
________________________________________
*Deus est ens per essentiam suam, quia est ipsum esse, omne antem aliud ens est ens per particpationem; quia ens, quod sit suum esse, non potest esse nisis unum. Contra gentiles, 1,2, c. 15.
**E.g., the notion that animals or nature have "rights" in the strict sense of the term is absurd. Only a rational being can have rights in the strict sense. One might point to the efforts to have a "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth" as a theologically and philosophically perverse venture.