Faithfully Yours - Answering Powell's Questions

Details

Published on Sunday, October 15, 2017

Neil Strohschein
Neepawa Banner & Press

Larry Powell’s letter requesting “further explanation” of opinions expressed in “A Christian Response to Natural Disaster” raised some very valid points. He concluded his letter by asking if I would respond to his questions in a future column. Well, here goes. It may take two or three columns, but I will do my best to answer them.

First, he asked why I didn’t make any reference to climate change in the column. Because I get very angry with people who use natural disasters like hurricanes, or horrible tragedies like the Las Vegas shooting as springboards from which to launch a verbal or written tirade on their favorite political or social issue. So I am not about to do something that angers me when I see someone else doing it.

My focus was on the victims. My inspiration was those who responded like one firm in Quebec did recently. They collected large amounts of lumber and other emergency supplies, packed them in shipping containers and sent them to Puerto Rico and the southern United States; all at the company’s expense. I wanted to encourage my readers to do what they could to help the victims of these disasters; and I hope I was able to do that.

That being said, I need to answer his query about my personal views on climate change. My views are not defined by any faith community. I am familiar with the positions taken by some church denominations; but these views are “my” views—and come from more than 40 years of listening to comments, personal observation and reflection.

The “facts” of climate change cannot be disputed. Global warming is a problem that we’ve known about for years but have not significantly addressed until recently. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov) has an excellent series of articles documenting the types of greenhouse gasses being emitted into the atmosphere, their sources and what can be done to reduce them. The writers of these articles present the facts in a fair and unbiased manner; using the best scientific research and the most current data available.

But agencies like the EPA (and its Canadian equivalent) are severely limited in what they can do to address environmental issues because the policies they enforce are enacted by politicians. And politicians often appear to pay more attention to popularity polls and pressure groups than they do to those who have sound data to share and practical solutions to offer.

I am all for measures that will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But I don’t expect to see any significant reductions from the transportation and agricultural sectors (the two biggest sources of them, according to the EPA) any time soon; at least not in rural Canada.

Our existence is directly linked to fossil fuels. We do not have access to public transportation. Many of us must drive to work and drive as part of our work. Over 90 per cent of the goods in Manitoba are transported by truck. Our farm equipment runs on diesel fuel. Many of our homes are heated by oil, propane or natural gas. Few affordable alternatives are available to us.

I am prepared to be part of a transition to a renewable energy economy. But this transition must be a just transition—one that does not impose excessive restrictions or high taxes on those whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels without first offering them alternatives that they can afford.

Science is leading the way. Government, industry and the general public must follow.

Next week—answering questions on faith and the power of prayer.