Carolyn Carney
What is a Neighbor free to do?
Freedom. It is the great Western ideal. Unabashedly, it is what we have gone to war for. It is what is behind our claim on our “rights.” Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Freedom to bear arms. Freedom of choice for everything from a woman’s body to what kind of hamburger we choose to eat. But freedom did not start with the American Revolution. It is not an American thing—it is a God thing.
The Triune God, all-powerful, everlasting God is absolutely free. There are no bounds placed on God, no restrictions, no limits. God can not be confined to time and space.
But in his freedom, God chooses for the other. In God’s freedom, he chooses to create—for the other. He gives light to the darkness, plants and animals for the earth, birds for the sky, fish and creatures for the sea. A perfectly free Father-Son-and-Spirit God chooses for the other when man is formed from the ground. In God’s freedom, he breathes air and life into Adam’s lungs. God chooses for the other. A covenant is initiated with Abram. No one made God do this; Abraham wasn’t even asking for it. God freely chose. And so also, the Father--in his freedom—sent Jesus to the world and in turn, Jesus, freely gave his life for the other—for all the others.
And so, if we name ourselves as followers of Christ, freedom’s purpose is not for me, it is for the other. (Don’t keep reading unless this truth sinks in.)
And this brings us to the question of our freedom to consume wantonly. Global warming is one ecological battleground related to consumerism, but less noted is soil deterioration (from farms only growing one crop, like coffee or bananas), acid rain (related to consumption of electricity from coal-fired plants), or even the extinction of local varieties of crops in favor of “marketable” breeds. Am I free to drive whatever I can afford? Sure. But does what I choose in freedom eliminate the freedoms of another? If so, then it is not true freedom I have exercised, not as it is illustrated by the One who made us.
Global warming is a real problem and it is inextricably connected to global poverty. It would be foolish to attempt solving global poverty without addressing the issues that lead to increasing climate changes.
A quick primer on global warming and greenhouse gases: burning fossil fuels (like gasoline) releases carbon dioxide. (The U.S. produces 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases from less than 5% of the world’s population.) All those forest fires we hear about? They release more carbon into the air, less trees means less carbon dioxide is absorbed. Result? More carbon in the atmosphere AND the soil dries out increasing droughts. The polar ice cap melting? Trapped carbon will be released into the air. Less ice equals more heat; melting ice raises sea levels. Thirteen of the twenty largest cities in the world are at sea level. Remember Banda Aceh? Katrina?
In a recent study (“Impact of Regional Climate Change on Human Health”, undertaken by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the World Health Organization, the leading author, Dr. Jonathan Patz declared, “Those least able to cope and least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected.” The WHO estimates that at least 150,000 deaths are directly related to the effects of climate changes every year. And of course, as global warming continues its rise, the WHO estimates this figure could double by 2030.
The major effects of global warming contributing to mortality are heat waves, droughts (that bring crop failure) and infectious diseases. When we think of heat waves, we usually think of the scorching heat found in deserts or the shirt-wringing damp humidity of the tropics. But in August 2003, TIME reports that twenty thousand Europeans succumbed to the heat. (See the April 3, 2006 issue for a special report on global warming that details the destructive cycle of greenhouse gasses.)
TIME reports that a “predicted consequence of global warming is heavier downpours, leading to more flooding” which leads to a “larger issue of water quality.” Flooding and unclean water affects the spread of malaria, diarrhea, cholera and dengue fever—all diseases we rarely hear about in the U.S., but are killers in the developing world.
Since they are considered so environmentally friendly, some might opt (in their freedom!) for a hybrid or even a new hybrid SUV. However, you may want to consider the words of Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a professional car-tester and columnist who recently wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (“Life in the Green Lane,” April 16, 2006). A recent Lexus hybrid SUV was rated at 21 MPG, not particularly “brilliant efficiency-wise—hybrid or not.” The Toyota Prius, according to Kitman’s and Automobile Magazine’s tests, whose miles is around 40 per gallon around town, plummets on the Interstate. “In fact, the car’s computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted,” writes Kitman. He concludes that a Corolla, costing thousands less, would have been much more conservative on gasoline. (And think what could have been done with the saved money?!)
So what are we left to—walking, bicycling? Well, a little more of that wouldn’t hurt. As individuals, we are not called to change the entire world ourselves. But what is our part? Can I do my small part, whatever that may be. Not because it makes me feel good, but because I love my neighbor.
Our choices affect others. They are never merely “personal (read: private) choices.” In the end, we are free to choose. But let us consider choosing for the other—for our neighbors.
Print
Email
