M&B: Your area of study is social ethics. In what way your approach to environmental problems is different than an ecologist, environmental scientist, or a purely religious scholar?

Dr. Hadsell: As social ethicists, when we look at the question of the environment we look at other questions in the human social world. So for example questions of peace and conflict, questions of population, questions of rich and poor within countries, questions of rich nations and poor nations, north and south, east and west so forth. In every case the goal is also to get the science right, to get the data right. So if you’re looking at issues of north and south for example what is the north what is the south what are the relationships we’re talking about are those political relationships? Are those economic relationships? How are political relationships related to economic relationships and culture and language and history and so forth? And when we therefore turn our attention to the environment we’re doing the same thing. We’re asking “whose environment?” According to whom what aspects of the environment. We also look at how are the environmental questions are being raised today. We look at issues of global warming and our use of natural resources accelerated use of natural resources and so forth. The social ethicist will say how these environmental issues are related to other issues that we know something about? That is how are they related to political issues, to economic issues to historical cultural interactions and so forth?

While some environmentalists takes the environmental issue as an object in itself and see it from their own perspective, a social ethicist will say as we look at the environment how is that question embedded in all of these other questions? They want to know the data about the environment the scientific data about the use of the consumption of natural resources and the acceleration of global warming and who is using the most resources? They want to know all of those things but they drive that discussion also from the philosophical religious side of things and ask from a religious perspective from a Christian perspective from a Muslim perspective let’s say, what is the human responsibility here? What does scripture tell us about the proper relationship between humans on the one hand nature on the other and God on the other? What is this relationship between these 3 things?

M&B: It seems like many different factors must be taken in to considerations.

Social ethics is really a composition of a number of things including sociology, political science studies of the social world, sometimes cultural anthropology as well as the more philosophical and religious area of ethics. And if you put those all together you have what is really called social ethics. People often work out of traditions, for example one can be an ethicist who’s interested in the social world and political issues in the social world out of a Muslim perspective or out of a Christian perspective or out of a Hindu perspective and so forth. There are also a humanist perspective so there are various approaches and they can be grounded religiously or not. That is religious people using scripture and faith but also then drawing upon as I said political science, history, sociology, cultural anthropology. When you put that together then it really is what in the United States we call the discipline of social ethics.

M&B: What are the challenges in working in such a diverse multicultural setting?

Multicultural settings are challenging be cause the history of human relationship with the environment varies with the cultures and religions. Different cultures approach nature in different ways and have a history with nature that is specific and different from other cultures.

In the United States and in our school Hartford Seminary we have a lot of cultures interacting as well as religions interacting. So you get a wide spectrum of perspectives and a wide spectrum of experiences and each perspective and each experience may assume that its own perspective is the normative one because of course it comes out of their own experience. It’s very important to think and to discuss these questions of the human relationship with nature across cultures and across religions to check the tendency for each perspective to blow its own perspective up and to call it common sense and to assume that its common to everyone.

M&B: Not only there are various religious and cultural settings but also geography seems to be an important factor when we approach to environmental problems.

In the United States for several decades there was an assumption that the environment is an issue that is of concern to white rich people. And that the rest of the American population or maybe the rest of the global population outside of north America and Europe for example don’t have the luxury of thinking about environmental issues. Of course that’s not true. The environmental issues such as global warming are going to affect most directly the very people who, once thought, shouldn’t care about the environment because they have other things to worry about like getting food on the table and so forth.

So these issues are complex and I think in recent years the environmental movement has become more able to think across cultures and across specific social classes for example and nations to think about the environment in more subtle ways. In the United States one of the things we’ve started talking about already 10 years ago is for example the issue of environmental racism. That is African Americans in the United States and inner cities of the United States may think of the environment as being something that people in the suburbs who are worried about who want to protect their trees or their streams or you know the kind of natural environment that they have and the reason that they’ve moved out into the suburbs in the first place. Whereas there are many environmental issues going on right in the inner cities which is often the place where the dirtiest processing plants are located. Many environmental issues are very close to home to a variety of cultures and a variety of income groups. The environment is far too important for global humanity to leave it up to one group as an issue for that particular group. It has to be an issue that is on the agenda for all of us from our own perspectives because we all get hit with these environmental issues. They’re moral issues for all of us and we need to have that conversation across these groups.

M&B: You said that the environmental problems hits the communities who depends on nature first. On the other hand the ones who are doing the pollution actually do not depend on nature so much. Do you think this adds another layer of responsibility or accountability to the problem?

I think it’s very true that the people around the world who are already vulnerable often already poor and often already living very close to nature. I think about people in the Pacific Islands for example. They are the people who are most immediately affected by changes in the environment as we see with the studies about the rising sea level in relationship to global warming. Many the people who will be most immediately affected are people who live as fishermen for example in villages who can’t protect themselves and can’t protect their villages and their livelihoods from the effects of global warming.

So yes, it’s very much the case that the people who are already vulnerable are the people who are poor and don’t have a lot of political participation or representation. The people who don’t have a lot of control over their lives are the people who will be most immediately affected by global warming. The people who live in big cities and lives removed from nature in the sense that they don’t know where their food comes from it’s shipped in from wherever all around the globe. They live in heated buildings and air conditioned buildings and they drive cars and so forth. They may not understand the complexity of the environmental issues and they may think themselves to be less vulnerable to questions like global warming.

I think one of the challenges of social ethics pertaining to the environment is to get the people in the cities who feel separate from nature and from the processes of nature to understand the direct although sometimes hidden links they have with the natural world and how their lifestyle and their consumption of resources effects the natural world and how the depletion of nature will in turn affect them and their lifestyles and even in big cities.

M&B: In what way religious traditions or ethical approaches could motivate them to take a new look at the nature?

I think that the sense of the sacred is a very important concept for the environmental movement. I think that as religious people the worldview of religious people is that everything that is given by God is endowed with a kind of sacred quality. So that all of the resources given by God should be approached with a sense of respect and honor the same kind of sense of respect and honor that we give towards sort of classically sacred moments or objects. It’s very much the case that many people in the environmental movement even if they are secular people, they have an experience with nature, an intuition of something bigger, grander and outside of human control and domination.

Many people, even if they’re secular, they sense in nature a kind of sacredness and it brings them that sense that they have even if they can’t talk about it in religious terms or don’t choose to talk about it in religious terms. I’ve met a number of people for whom direct experience with nature has brought them back into religious exploration in religious traditions because they’ve sensed a presence of the sacred in nature. And it takes them into an exploration in their own traditions or new traditions for them. It’s very clear that nature and the sacred are in many ways connected.

Unfortunately there is also a sense in which the leveling of the human perception and imagination in an extremely secular spirit so that the only measure is the human. To think that there are no measurements, no dimensions outside of the human is an impoverishment of human imagination and leads to a disregard for the intrinsic value of nature. Nature is not simply a reflection of what it does for me or how I can use it but that the things of nature are intrinsically in and of themselves valuable.

M&B: Do you think interfaith dialog is an important step to solve environmental problems?

I do think that when we think about religious plurality there are varieties of ways to structure conversations across different religious groups. And some people really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine. That’s what they like to do and they really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine and I think that’s a wonderful occupation, its time very well spent, and those people ought to spend their time doing that.

There’s other people who want to work together inter religiously not so much on the issues directly of religious doctrine, but on other issues. They want to problem solve together and they want to attack together across religions questions that are facing all of us. And it is for those kinds of people that the environmental issues are good possibilities for bringing people together across religious traditions to work together on environmental challenges. That is how Hindus or Buddhists or Christians or Muslims or Jews, each formed by and carrying with them their religious values can come to a common table and think together about environmental challenges and work together on those environmental challenges.

And I think that’s a very interesting way to work and it is a way that in some ways will go farther than either political conversations – specifically political conversations – or specifically doctrinal conversations; this is a different way of working together and I think it can be very positive.

First, we should emphasize that Prof. Zewail’s statements resonate very well with what famous scholar Ibn-al Haytham said 10 centuries ago:

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the job of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”

Every human being is given the ability to think. That is what makes all the progress of humanity possible. When we think we process the information we receive based on what we already know and we usually make judgments. Nobody can deny that all humans go through this process many times every day. But we can question the outcome of our thinking process, that is, our judgments. Many times, we can be wrong in our judgments, and this is where “critical” thinking might help.

Today, most people learn how to think systematically at schools, particularly during university education. In fact, according to Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard University, faculty members in the US almost unanimously agree that “teaching critical thinking” is the principal aim for undergraduate education. Although many have great conviction that critical thinking is very important, there is no universal definition for it. The American Philosophical Association gives the following definition:

“Purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual and methodological considerations on which a judgment is based.”

Based on this definition and what we quoted from Ibn-al Haytham, we can identify the following points about critical thinking:

1) When you read or hear a statement, do not accept it without question.

2) Try to find other information that can support or disprove the statement, try to come up with ways to demonstrate validity or falsehood of the statement, and test the statement.

3) As you perform your critical examination, be aware of your own deficiencies as a human. Consider your own biases, numerous possibilities of making mistakes in your judgments, or prejudices you can assume without knowing.

4) Be aware of the method you use for evaluating a claim, and think about both its strengths and weaknesses.

Critical thinking, if we develop the habit of performing it, can help us every day. Consider how you receive information in the twenty-first century. Typically, you read a newspaper or watch news on TV. If you just accept what you hear and see, then you can sometimes be manipulated or fooled. In an ideal world we can assume that objective presentation of news is possible. In the real world, however, those who transfer news bits to the population are also humans who are prone to similar biases. Many times a newspaper or a TV station represents certain values, ideologies, or supports some political positions. Besides, news reporting is so much commercialized that news editors and reporters also think about how to attract readers, and might use catchy words deliberately. Therefore, everyone should ask questions, clarify certain interpretations, and need to fight their own biases before reaching conclusions whenever they encounter a media report. An increased number of critical thinkers will help create a healthy debate about controversial issues.

We can expand this critical approach with respect to news media to our formal education experiences. At schools, our teachers deliver new information every day. We also read our textbooks. Typical student tendency might be to just accept what they hear and what they read, though this may depend on the student’s intellectual development and the culture of the society. If we perform critical thinking in the classroom and while reading textbooks, we can grow intellectually much more than otherwise. We can retain what we learn more easily. In addition, the purpose of schools and universities is to prepare us for life. We all know that in real life problems are never well defined, and most of the time you cannot readily find an authoritative figure or a manual to consult. Therefore, it is imperative that we teach students to question what they hear and what they read. In order to encourage students to perform more critical thinking in the classroom, however, we might need to find alternative modes of teaching and move away from conventional method of active teacher – passive students.

Although we must strive to teach critical thinking, we should also recognize the fact that there are roughly three distinct phases in our lives with respect to thinking, and not everyone is in the same phase at a given time. When we are young we usually think that every question has a certain answer, and it is just a matter of finding the authority who can give that answer. As we grow up, however, we realize that sometimes many authoritative figures may disagree. This observation may make one a relativist; that is, we might start thinking that depending on who you ask the answer varies, and it is all relative. As we further grow in our intellectual development, we usually notice that although people disagree on certain topics, we should always make some decisions, and some points of view have more support than others. By performing critical thinking we can filter out less reliable information, and come to better conclusions. In some complex cases, however, we might realize that there is no single correct judgment, and circumstances might lead us down different paths.

In the context of these three different phases, we can safely claim that on the average you expect the ability to think critically improve, as we get older. Elementary school children are most likely to think that there is a correct answer to every question. In middle and high school, many students will realize that there may be different answers to the same question depending on whom you ask. By the time of their graduation we expect university students to learn how to critically evaluate information. This final outcome, though very significant for a healthy society, highly depends on our teaching strategies. That is, if rote memorization is more valued than critical evaluation, then university graduates might stay as naive relativists or even worse.

Critical thinking is extremely crucial to separate the truth from myth. A well known example is about our brains. In many societies, it is said that people typically use about 10% of their brain, and geniuses like Einstein are able to use more of their brains. Some questions to ask are as follows:

1) What does it mean to use 10% of the brain?

2) Who provides this information? Is s/he a neuroscientist?

3) How do people measure brain usage?

4) Einstein lived long time ago. Did they measure his brain activity the same way as the control group to conclude that he used more of his brain?

When we search for answers to these questions, we typically find that there is no basis for this claim. It does not mean much. Maybe the statement originally meant that many do not use their brain’s full potential, which might be true. But, when the statement is compared to what we know about brain science, then it becomes a myth.

While everyone and every profession benefits from critical thinking, some jobs require critical thinking more than others. Scientists, for example, have an obligation to be extremely critical of others’ work. Let us remember that Ahmad Zewail and Ibn-al Haytham are both scientists. In science, there is a process called “peer review,” which is extremely useful. Any research carried out becomes scientific knowledge after it is submitted to the critical reviews of other scientists in the field. Any contribution submitted to a scientific journal is tested for correctness and originality. At the end of the critical review, the reviewers submit a report to the editors of the journal, who then make a decision. Many times the authors of the article are asked questions or are asked to make modifications, to which they may respond. In short, we can safely state that a scientist must be a critical thinker, or otherwise s/he cannot perform his or her research duties, and s/he is prone to become a repeater of someone else’s ideas, and may go awry at times.

From what we explained so far, it is probably obvious that we need some background knowledge about a subject in order to become a real critical thinker. It is clear that if someone knows nothing about urban planning, for example, it is very hard for him to critically examine any work on urban planning. This straightforward observation suggests that most people cannot be critical thinkers even if they want to be. Fortunately, this conclusion is only partially true because critical thinking is not a single discrete outcome but rather a continuum. Although knowledge of a topic makes us better thinkers in a field, there are always some minimal questions one can ask. For example, there is a controversial topic and someone makes some crucial statements about it. Even if you don’t know about the topic, you can ask whether the speaker is an expert on the topic or not. Or you can ask about what kind of evidence he is using. Does the evidence presented come from a reliable source? Why may this person take this side of the argument, but not other alternatives? Are there any other alternative approaches to the same issue? That is, at minimum, the answers to these questions can help us develop sound judgment.

A great case in which many feel lost is the global warming debate. By doing a simple web search on global warming you can find articles both supporting and denying human-caused global warming. But which point of view should you believe? Although there is consensus that global warming is happening, there is disagreement about whether it is caused by our technological conveniences, or whether it is just a result of natural temperature fluctuations in geological time scales (hundreds of thousands of years).

Indeed, the question “which point of view should you believe?” may not be the correct question. Instead, perhaps we should ask why people feverishly debate about this issue. Why do people care a lot about various aspects of global warming and atmospheric science research? A little investigation shows that there is a lot at stake. Accepting that excessive use of energy by humans, which leads to increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, causes global warming has many economic, political, and social consequences. If you agree that man-made global warming can trigger many other events which can eventually make the climate on the Earth fall off-balance, then it follows that many people in the world must change their lifestyles, and this may also mean that some big companies must make changes which may hurt their profits, or that some governments might not use certain political leverage in international relations.

Obviously, it will not be easy to accept such findings, even if they come from some prominent scientists. There are, in fact, scientists on both sides of the aisle. This is because atmospheric science is extremely complex, and even with our best computers modeling the changes in the atmosphere it remains a very hard task. Further investigation also shows that there are different types of evidence people use. Some point to reports prepared with sponsorship from some governments or companies. Some expand on disagreements among scientists, and conclude that no action is needed until all the claims are proven. As we mention above, there are also scientific articles published in “peer-reviewed” journals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts out consensus statements. In short, it is a complex issue, and the credibility of evidence varies. We leave further investigation on climate change to practice critical thinking to the interested reader.

Critical thinking requires effort, sometimes a lot of effort. Lazy personalities and those who do not like to engage their mental abilities are less likely to perform critical thinking. In this regard, critical thinking is also very different from rote criticism. Rote criticism does not require much effort; typically the statements of the person performing the critique do not have a sound basis. While critical thinking is necessary for a healthy society to clarify especially certain controversial topics, mere criticism of one another can be a means to create unnecessary enmity among individuals.

Critical thinking does not mean that we need to become a skeptic and reject everything. In fact, descriptions of critical thinking involve paying special attention to certain criteria and standards. In practice, if one does not have any reference it becomes very hard to move forward in thought. What needs to be emphasized is that the world is not black and white. It displays a vast variety of colors. We can give more weight to certain colors than to others. What we cannot claim is that there is a single color, and all others are false. We can certainly have certain beliefs, paradigms, and values. These may become the basis for some of the criteria and standards against which we evaluate new information. At times, great events and findings might force us to evaluate certain paradigms we take for granted, too. However, such sharp turns do not happen frequently in the life of an individual or society.

In conclusion, critical thinking skills are essential for everybody. We should be aware of our own shortcomings, biases, prejudgments, as well as the sources, agendas, worldviews, paradigms and the information channels we use when we process new information. Critical thinking cannot be done instantly; it requires effort and courage to come face-to-face with one’s own errors. Teaching critical thinking is not instant, either. Formal and informal education institutions must strive to develop critical thinking skills in students, and such an endeavor might require modification of our approach to teaching. In the final evaluation, it is extremely crucial that we take the necessary steps to increase the number of critical thinkers in the world for the benefit of all humankind.

Dr. Ertan Salik is an Assistant Prof. of Physics at California State Polytechnic Univ, Pomona. As well as teaching and conducting physics research Dr. Salik is currently involved in many education programs.

Notes

1. The Fountain magazine, interview with Ahmad Zewail by Nuh Gedik, Jan-Feb 2009, issue 67.
2. Steffens, Bradley. Ibn-al Haytham: First Scientist, Morgan Reynolds Publishing. Also see Book Review in The Fountain Magazine, issue 63, May-June 2008.
3. Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges, Princeton Univ Press, 2006.
4. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, American Philosophical Association Report, 1990.
5. IPCC consensus statements can be downloaded from http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect

A greenhouse is a place that is usually covered with glass or plastic walls where early season vegetables and house-plants are cultivated. Rays from the Sun can easily penetrate a greenhouse, but once they hit the ground they are transformed into thermo-energy, with the wavelength of the beams shortening and their energy diminishing. As a result, these beams with a shorter wavelength cannot leave the greenhouse due to the glass or plastic walls. Therefore the warming of the greenhouse increases as more and more rays enter. We call this process the greenhouse effect.

Similarly, some gases in the strata of the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases since these gases cause the same greenhouse effect for the Earth. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbon, and water vapor. These gases have been created with a property that does not prevent (or prevents to a very small extent) the light energy that comes from the Sun from reaching the Earth and that prevents the infrared heat energy waves that are formed after this energy reaches the Earth from radiating to the higher layers of the atmosphere. Both the Earth and the layers of the atmosphere close to the Earth are heated by these gases. If there were not any of these gases surrounding the Earth it is estimated that the Earth would be 33° C colder. Although there is a delicate balance and measure among the gases in the atmosphere that allows the maintenance of the Earth’s temperature at a sensible level, human beings are carrying out practices that can ruin this balance. We, as human beings, are responsible for the global warming that is perceived as a danger today.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is half the reason for the total greenhouse effect. This gas is formed as a result of the use of fossil fuels, the respiration of humans, animals, and plants, and the disintegration of organic substances. Industrial development has caused a rapid increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is known that 85% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels, with 15-20% stemming from the respiration of living beings and the other ecological continuous cycles.

In the last 150 years, a total of 389 Gt of carbon dioxide has been emitted into the atmosphere. 265 Gt of this carbon dioxide comes from the consumption of fossil fuels and the production of cement. 124 Gt comes from changes in land use. 214 Gt of this total has been reabsorbed by land and sea ecosystems and the oceans. This means that there is a surplus of 175 Gt of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The Importance of the Forests

Forests play an essential role in lowering the diffusions of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere and in forming “carbon absorption” by occluding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Thus, except for sedimentary rocks, 67% of the carbon kept on the land is stored in the forest ecosystem. 75% of the carbon kept by vegetation is stored in the forests. In addition, as long as some long-lived wooden products (wooden houses, furniture, etc.) decay or are burnt they remain as carbon storages.

As we all know, during photosynthesis the carbon dioxide that is taken from the atmosphere is separated into carbon and oxygen molecules. Then the carbon is stored in the roots, trunks, branches, and leaves of plants, being used in order to form carbon hydrates. Therefore carbon dioxide, the most essential greenhouse gas, becomes balanced. We can compare this to a huge factory that works very quietly and causes no waste. It is such an efficient factory that it transforms harmful substances into useful ones. We cannot say that we human beings appreciate this factory or protect its resources. Although today forests cover 3.7 billion hectares, comprising 30% of all land, between the years 1990–2000 on average 9.4 million hectares of forest were annually removed. That means that during this period the forest regions of the world diminished by 2%. As a result of such negative occurrences, because the carbon balance of vegetation, soil and organic substances had been destroyed, the forests, one of the means of God’s mercy upon us, have become sources of carbon dioxide and a tragedy due to our exploitation.

Ligneous living masses increase each year, while falling leaves add to the carbon storage. As a result, forest ecosystems contain carbon. After the growth of trees, most of the carbon dioxide they occlude each year goes toward developing the biomass of the tree. This means that in the first 30-40 years a high rate of carbon storage occurs. As the forest ecosystem develops, the organic substance of the soil and the total respiration in the ecosystem (occlusion of carbon dioxide) increase. When the ecosystem has fully developed, it no longer has the characteristics of “carbon absorption” anymore. In this case, the amount of carbon taken from the atmosphere is equal to the carbon emitted back by the biomasses of the trees and is kept in the soil. The time it takes for a tree to fully develop depends on the type of tree and the climate zones. However most of the carbon storage occurs in the first 60-100 years. It has been determined by research that a well-developed 100 year-old beech tree absorbs 40,000,000 m_ of air with its leaves for photosynthesis and binds 1,200 m_ of carbon dioxide in the air as 6 tons of carbon.

As well as being a community of trees, forests are environmental systems and living communities, with soil that was created over a thousand years, with millions of plants, animals, and microorganisms, and their reciprocal relationships. It is very difficult for this system to be restored once destroyed by human beings. Forests provide an essential service in a consistent and balanced carbon flow between the biosphere and the atmosphere with respiration that is dependent on photosynthesis and the activities of life in the soil and the plants. Forests are the lungs of the Earth.

In the light of these facts, the duty of human beings is to protect the vegetation and to reforest the treeless lands, to decrease human pressure on existing forests and to improve forests that have been damaged. Oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide were created as continuous cycles for the continuation of the life. When these treasures have been damaged as a result of the greed of human beings, the costs are too high for us to reverse the trend. Billions of people are victimized; yet they are nor directly responsible for such acts. These delicate balances can be revived if we lead a simple and modest life, where we consume less and we produce less. Those who ought to understand this first must promise to be more respectful to God and to change themselves. Even if we fulfill our responsibilities, we can do nothing today but hope that those whose destructive powers are great may desire such a spiritual revolution.

References

• Cepel, N., Ekolojik Sorunlar ve Cozumleri, Tubitak Populer Bilim Kitaplar›, Ankara: 2003.
• Roulet, N.T., Freedman, B., What Trees Can Do to Reduce Atmosferic CO2, Tree Canada Foundation, Ontario: 2003.
• Report by the Commission of Climate Change Experts, DPT (Turkey’s Official Planning Organization), Ankara: 2001.
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001, Global Forest Resources Assesment 2000, ISSN 0258-6150, FAO Forestry Paper:140.

No institution is better suited to preach clean air, water, and land than the institutions that profess a love of God and God’s Creation, Bingham says. There’s no place in the New Testament where it says we should use energy-efficient appliances. But everything we know about Jesus says that he identified with the poor and the marginalized and that he loved his neighbor. Global warming is hurting creation at a rapid rate and will soon cause great harm to the developing nations, who are as usual hit harder and sooner than the rest of us. Already we are seeing more severe storms, disease, drought and floods leading to famine and malnutrition.

Along with Steve MacAusland, a video producer from Dedham, Mass., Bingham founded the Episcopal Power and Light ministry, and later spin-off interfaith programs in states ranging from power-strapped California to oil-rich Texas. In California alone, the group persuaded 27 churches to install solar panels and 61 churches to switch to a renewable power company called Green Mountain Energy. By consolidating the purchasing power of the state’s churches, EP&L was able to secure green energy at a great price.

Unfortunately, the chain of events surrounding deregulation of the state’s power industry forced Green Mountain Energy to pull the plug on their California customers. In turn, churches had no choice but to again power their sacred spaces with fossil fuels. We carry tremendous guilt knowing that we are polluting out neighbor’s air every time we turn on the lights. We have been forced into sinful behavior that frightens us. We may end up in a place so hot it will make global warming seem like a cold shower.

Bingham: I am a member of the Episcopal Environmental Network, a national group of people that come together once a year to talk about the issues that the church wants to get involved in. I’ve been a member of it when the national church first formed this organization It’s also kind of a support group for those of us around the country who are feeling pain over the degradation of the environment. We kind of lament and pray and support each other. If you feel like you’re the lone person crying in the wilderness, it’s important to have a group come together and talk about these things.

A man from Massachusetts, Steve Causland, came on the committee in about 1996. We were on a long hike one day and talking about our committee, and we decided we really wanted to do something to make a difference. So we had to figure out what we saw as the most important issue facing the world today and it was climate change.

So over the next year, he and I founded Episcopal Power and Light (EP&L). I had already founded a 501 (c)(3) called the Regeneration Project, an interfaith ministry to link people of faith with their ecology. I hadn’t done anything with this yet I’d been in seminaryso it was just waiting there for a project.

Thompson: What denominations have been working on this?

Bingham: Well, here in California, the California Council of Churches is all the Protestant churches across the board. And then we have a member of the board of rabbis and a member of COEJL, which is Coalition for Environmental Jewish Life, and a fellow down in Los Angeles who is Muslim. So it truly is interfaith. And each one of us has a responsibility to get our constituency on board. We have a congregational covenant which you can download from the Internet. There are all these different areas where you can check off the things your congregation are willing to do. It’s targeted at the leadership of the church, whether it be the director of a Presbyterian church or a rabbi of a synagogue, because it asks them to educate their congregation on global warming. I’m in the process now of putting together materials that they’ll be able to use to take this education into their congregation.

Thompson: How does your message differ from that of environmentalists who address the issue from a secular point of view?

Bingham: We bring the moral component. We see energy conservation and efficiency as a responsibility for people of faith, as loving one’s neighbor. So it comes from the heart rather than the pocketbook. Conserving energy with the consciousness that what you say, someone else might be able to use is putting your faith into action.

Thompson: I like your update of a familiar parable: Harder for a wasteful consumer to get into heaven than an SUV to pass through the eye of a needle. You’re preaching some messages that are pretty uncomfortable for people to hear, messages people have heard many times in many forums but not necessarily taken to heart. What do you think it will take to shift thinking away from overconsumption and consumerism?

Bingham: It’s true. I think they need to hear the message more than once, but with our ministry we plant those seeds. With our train the trainer program, more people will be able to articulate the message, and I think we’ll have a huge impact. The more people out there preaching this kind of thing, the more effect it can have.

Last Sunday was the first time I’d given an environmental sermon at the 11 o’clock service. There was such a positive responseeveryone was clapping at the end that doesn’t happen here very often. That told me that people are ready to hear this message. It was affirming to folks who are already beginning to think that way because of what they’re reading in the newspaper about energy and global warming. Now they hear this and think Oh my God, the church is with me on this.

We’re still on the cutting edge of the ministry. I don’t know if there were 400 or 800 people in that congregation on Sunday, but I know that probably half of them are hearing this message for the first time. But they’ll hear it again.

And it is such a perfect thing for the church to do. Often what we read in the paper about religious organizations is the bad newssome clergy member who broke his or her vows in one way or another. This is good news about the church. Here we are at the forefront, doing a positive thing that’s going to hopefully save the planet.

Thompson: It’s one thing to preach to a liberal, environmentally-minded congregation in San Francisco, but how do you see your ministry winning conservative Christians who support Bush’s energy policies? Have you done any work in the Bible Belt?

Bingham: One of the interfaith programs is in Texasit isn’t founded yet, because we’ve just started our work, but I have been an advisor to the dioceses of West Texas on renewable energy, and we are planning a launching event there in October. In June I flew into Corpus Christi, Texas, which is the heart of the oil country, and talked to the bishop there about powering their council meeting in February with wind. They haven’t agreed to do that yet, but I think they’re going to. Green Mountain has already agreed to buy the wind and resell it back to the dioceses council.

The Episcopal Church powered its 15,000-person convention in Denver last July with wind purchased from the border of Wyoming and Colorado. It was the first convention in this country to be powered by renewable energy. Then we challenged the Democratic and Republican conventions to do it; the Democrats did. At the Episcopal convention, the National Renewable Energy lab, which is in Boulder, Colorado, set up a display right next to the EP&L booth. We also a little bucket on our booth and asked everybody to contribute one dollar to the extra cost of wind (it was literally 10 cents per day per person to have wind for the ten-day conference).

The idea blew the general convention. When we got back to our offices, we started getting calls from people all over the country. A woman in Tennessee was so eager to switch to renewable power that she did the research herself and made it happen. Now we’re going to Tennessee to do an event there in November, and we’re going to Detroit to do the same thing. The reason I was in Texas was that the women down there decided they wanted to power their convention with wind. So it really started something. In Nashville, the first big cathedral there (get name) is buying green power from the Tennessee Valley Association.

Thompson: What has inspired you personally to do this work?

Bingham: I grew up down in Woodside, Calif., which is a pretty rural communityor used to be, before Silicon Valley started building all these huge houses down there. I spent so much time alone in nature that I developed a very strong sense of divine companionship in the wilderness. Then way later in lifeabout 1985, and I was living in New York, and I was a trustee for the Environmental Defense Fund. Every one of board meetings has a presentation by a staff scientist. For 10 years I listened to the threat of global warming, overfishing, dying coral reefs, and deforestation. I just at one point began to think: Where is the religious community in this problem? Why don’t we hear the religious voice? These are the people who sit in the pews on Sunday and say they love God and probably deep inside them love what God loves, and therefore love Creation, but they just haven’t paid attention.

Thompson: You’ve preached about the effects of global warming severe storms, disease, drought, floods, famine…Sounds like the Apocalypse.

Bingham: It’s interesting that you say that. My 21-year-old son answered the door yesterday, and some Bible-toting folks were out front. He said: You don’t have to talk to us because my mother’s a priest and she preaches about the environment. Right away the woman started quoting Revelations and the end of the world.

I don’t know. I don’t pretend to have knowledge of God’s intentions. But I’m more hopeful than thinking about the end of the world. Because I think that human hearts can and will change, and that we will stop this destructive way and bring things back together.

Thompson: What obstacles have you faced in this work, and how have you overcome them?

Bingham: The internal ones are relatively minor today. Ten years ago, it was great turmoil, because I felt alone in this work. There were not other clergy who would agree with me on any of this. They thought that I was mixing politics with religionit wasn’t seen as something that involved human souls, which was what the church all about. People would say isn’t the church about people? Those first few years were very difficult, and this is why I believe that there is so much hope. The change between a few years ago and today is just phenomenal. People are there; they understand the connection between faith and the environment and religion.

I stillbut not anywhere near as oftensometimes meet people who say that global warming isn’t real. In fact, yesterday I got an e-mail from someone who heard my Sunday sermon saying that I was wrong in saying that human behavior was causing global warming. He said it was actually being caused by a volcano in Hawaii.

Thompson: How do you respond to that?

Bingham: I haven’t, and I’ll tell you why. I used to get all wrapped up in one person’s view. If there were a hundred people in a room and 99 of them stood up and clapped, and one person said, you’re demented, I would go and spend hours with that one person. I just don’t do that anymore. I’m sorry they’re not better educated, but it isn’t worth my time. I may in fact recommend a couple books for this fellow to read, like The Heat is On, by Ross Gelbspanit’s a wonderful, very readable book about global warmingor something by Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist and climatologist, who has a lot of good work and a book by Steven Schneider, who’s at Stanford. I could put this person in touch with some of this literature and ask them to read about it and then come back and tell me that global warming is happening because of the volcano in Hawaii. If that was the case, I’d probably say, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

Thompson: How do you personally experience God in nature?

Bingham: I ask them to be mindful, really conscious, of every single one of their behaviors. The cups we use, the cars we drive the clothes we buy. I don’t condemn people who have the means to buy what they need. But when you buy ten times more than what you need. I live in a neighborhood where the recycling bins are sometimes just shockingin one week the amount of packaging that comes from Saks Fifth Avenue and Wilkes Bashford? You think how can these people possibly wear all these clothes? That’s where I draw the line. Now I know there are folks who will say, well if we didn’t go in there and buy all these clothes, think of the jobs these people who are selling the clothes wouldn’t have, and the people who are making the clothes and on and on and on down the chain. But I think there’s plenty to go around in this world for all of our needs. I think wealthy communities have to change their ways.

Thompson: What does the Bible have to say about protecting the environment?

Bingham: As you know, the Bible has lots and lots and lots of stories. I tend to take a metaphorical, not literal, interpretation of the Bible. Throughout Scripture, there are various teachings of restraintnot taking more than you need, loving your neighbor, giving to other people. People often ask me Was Jesus an environmentalist? Jesus identified with marginal people. And probably today he would identify with endangered species and coral reefs and forests, because he identified with pain and suffering, and right now creation is in pain and suffering. So I would go so far to say that if Jesus were here, he would not drive an SUV. He’d be on the White House steps with you. Do you see a relationship between America’s spiritual and environmental crises?

In Al Gore’s book, The Earth in Balance, he said just thatthe environmental crisis is a spiritual oneand I think it’s absolutely true. We’ve forgotten where we came from. We’ve forgotten our connection to all Creation. Children walk through the supermarkets and think that the bananas grow right out of the shelves there. Working with my compost, and planting the garden and eating food that comes out of itit’s a spiritual experience. It connects you to the land and teaches you the whole cycle of life. We’ve lost that.

Can we get reconnected to it? I hope so. I think that when we were an agricultural world, it was a lot easier, but being in cities, it’s hard to do. I think that some of those summer programs that take teenagers out into the wilderness are probably amazingly life-changing. And I think our parks and national recreational areascity parks and street treesall those things are really important. Everybody should have a backyard. It’s very deep inside of us, that connection to the land. But it needs to be awakened. We’ve gotten so far from the land that something has to reach out and stimulate us.

There are some wonderful teachers now that are starting to teach ecology in schools, and I think the church can play a magnificent role in this. Imagine if Sunday school classes started teaching about the different ways that God made birds’ beaks, that they eat the different kinds of seeds because the way their beaks are shapedI think all those kinds of things will help children get the sense that God is bigger than they aresomething that we have to live in awe of.

Thompson: Where do you see this ministry in 10 years?

Bingham: We’re getting ready to launch a program out of the Cathedral that’s going to be magnificent. Five years from now it will be, I hope, one of the best faith-based programs in the country. We want to have a curriculum that will link theology and ecology for all faith groups and train facilitators from different regions. If we can raise the money and that actually happens, you can imagine we need a bigger budget, we need more people. If it all happens, ten years from now, I see it as a viable ministry coming out of the Cathedral or perhaps the Regeneration Project, which is the home for Episcopal Power and Light will be its own 501 (c)(3) and we’ll be teaching this all over the world.

It’s hard to say. We’ve only been in business so to speak for three years. We’ve tripled our budget. A year ago, nobody was on staffmy partner and I were working for freebut this last year, we’ve been able to pay ourselves a salary and hire an assistant. We’re also looking for an office manager and a development director. So I see this getting huge.

Thompson: Can you leave us with a good quote from the Bible that relates to your work?

Bingham: It’s so simple. It’s the one I talk about all the time. The first and great commandment is to Love God. The second is like onto it, which is to love your neighbor as yourself. Therein lies this ministryif you love your neighbor, don’t pollute your neighbor’s air and water. You don’t trash something that your neighbor could use. That’s really it.