Thursday 11/13/14

Yesterday, in Beijing, President Obama struck a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping wherein both countries vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their two nations. It is kind of a big deal. The US and China are the world’s two biggest producers of greenhouse gasses. Together, we combine for over 37% of the world’s greenhouse gas productions, with China coming in around 22% and the US producing over 15%.

Some might argue that percentage of the total greenhouse gas production in the world is a bad rubric by which to measure our real contribution to the problem. After all, China and the US have pretty big populations. Wouldn’t that metric just favor smaller countries? Sure it does, which is why we also have figures which divide the total production of greenhouse gasses by population. The resulting figure is called CO ₂ Emissions Per Capita. When we measure by this statistic, we get a slightly different story.

Or, more accurately, China does. We still rank number two overall, the only difference is we are playing second fiddle to Australia instead of China. The United States produces eighteen metric tons of CO ₂ for every person living here. China produces just five and a half.

For those of you not well versed in the metric system, eighteen metric tons is just under 40,000 pounds. For those of you who still have a hard time picturing what that all might look like, I found this handy graphic online.

The graphic is a little misleading. By putting the block next to a house and showing two people standing next to it, it might give you the impression that that’s how much carbon dioxide a family produces in a year. It’s not. If you are an American like me, that box represents the amount of CO ₂ your personal lifestyle produces in just under three weeks. If there are five people in your family, your family produces this much carbon dioxide in just four days.

There are some scientists that believe that global warming may be a natural phenomenon. There are others who claim that it’s not as big a problem as we are being led to believe. However, for every legitimate scientist making these sorts of claims, dozens more are saying the opposite. Even if the scientific community were split right down the middle fifty-fifty, wouldn’t we want to err on the side of caution? What do we lose by trying to be innovative with our energy production? What do we lose by polluting less?

A few weeks ago, the Question of the Week dealt with the creation stories. I wrote how the stories were written to explain certain theological truths. One of the theological truths of the creation stories is that we are to be stewards of the earth. The earth is here to provide for us, but we have a profound responsibility to take care of that wonderful gift.

Think of it like this: if Nana knit you a sweater, you wouldn’t use it as a napkin and say “Whatever. Nana gave me this sweater, I can do whatever I want with it.” At least, I hope you wouldn’t. You would treat it with respect, take care of it, and make sure that you were wearing it the next time you went to visit even if it was the middle of July. Just think how much better we ought to be treating the wonderful gifts God has given us.

The deal is important for more than just the environment and our responsibility to it. It also shows that the US and China are capable of working together to achieve a common goal. This is a pretty big diplomatic step forward, and hopefully we can keep the lines of communication open so that we can address things like China’s not-so-stellar human rights record. Who knows, maybe we could even commit to some gradual reduction in the terrifying size of our nuclear arsenal.