Review and Theological Analysis of “An Inconvenient Truth”

This is a “cleaned-up” draft (as of 2/6/08) of a paper I wrote for my “Theology & Science” class. It has been a very interesting class that has spawned many a post on this blog over the past 10 weeks. I think the title tells you all need to know about the assignment and purpose of the paper. Enjoy…

Al Gore presents a rather convincing argument in his award-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Everything is there: star power, charisma, great visuals, humor, emotion, and even some scientific data. This last statement may sound like a scathing critique of the film, but I actually have mixed feelings about Gore’s message.

I applaud Gore for using his popularity to bring the issue to the attention of a wider public audience. His passion for climate change is certainly evident as he talks to his onscreen crowd. I do not even doubt the sincerity with which the research was conducted and the presentation was put together. There are moments in the film in which I believe him to be spot on. However, there are other times that seem to be so riddled with illogical assumptions that one cannot possibly take him seriously in his conclusions.

The rise in average global temperatures is well documented. However, the conclusive data that we possess – that is, the data that people around the world have been scientifically gathering since the late 19th century – reveals temperature “patterns” observed over a relatively short geological period of time: a mere 150 years. Realistically, one simply cannot draw an uncontroversial link between the actions of human beings and the rising CO2 levels – especially not when taking into consideration similar CO2 levels throughout earth’s history prior to the industrial revolution.

In one particular scene, Gore presents his audience with a graph depicting 650,000 years of CO2 and temperature trends. The graph is so condensed that a mere 100-year time span is virtually undetectable. Although the graph seems to show a correlation between the two levels, it is very difficult to determine what occurred first, how much time separated the rising CO2 and average temperature levels, and what may be causing the CO2 spikes represented. According to the presentation several periods of elevated CO2 levels, similar to what we are currently experiencing, can be observed. Gore offers no explanation for the phenomena.

Throughout the film we see several significant logical fallacies being used to demonstrate a major point. My “favorite” example is during the scene in which Gore reveals projected CO2 levels for the next 50 years. The numbers look menacing. This is an excellent example of a “slippery-slope” argument. Despite ample scientific evidence of cyclical climate change, Gore is arguing that CO2 levels will continue to rise and temperatures will rise along with them. The reality is that we simply do not know what the future will bring; CO2 may continue to rise, but it may just as easily drop.

Gore does an excellent job painting an apocalyptic picture of global climate change; he presents just one possible outcome: near total annihilation of life as we know it. His presentation can best be described as a message of fear. For Gore global warming means a 40-foot rise in sea levels, millions of displaced people, millions more killed by extreme weather, and potentially the end of human life as we know it. A worst-case scenario that is extremely unlikely.

Perhaps the most positive message to come out this film is the importance of environmental stewardship. I believe this to be a biblical mandate for all of humanity to follow and diligently pursue.

Christian environmental stewardship stems from a proper biblical understanding of humanity. Questions that must be considered include: “As human beings, what is our relationship to creation?” “What role do we play in creation?” “What is the nature of our relationship with the Creator?” “What role does God’s providence and grace play in the current environmental problem?” My sense is that a major presupposition underlying Gore’s motivation – and those who have whole-heartedly embraced his message – is that humanity is ultimately responsible/in control of their own destiny; if we mess something up, we need to fix it or our species will die out.

This understanding of life is disturbing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its obvious anthropocentric focus. The existence of humanity is touted as the single most important reality that exists, and we are the only things capable of doing any good. We are the saviors of the universe; meaning can only exist through us. Gore’s presupposition also indicates a view of humanity that ultimately considers homosapiens members of the animal kingdom themselves, equating human life to animal life.
By comparison, the Bible presents a drastically different view of humanity. When God declares creation to be “very good” following the creation of Adam and Eve, He is certainly declaring humanity to be the crowing achievement of all He made. However, in true God-like fashion, he quickly put Adam and Eve in their proper place. In Genesis 1:28, God says to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” Many Christians today who take an interest in environmental stewardship understand verse 28 as referring to care, preservation, and use in moderation.

I also want to bring attention to the object of God’s words when He “saw all that he had made and it was very good.” God has in mind all of creation of which human beings are only a part. Humanity’s relationship to creation is that we are included in it. Gore never gives his hearers a reason to think that he holds that same view of humanity. Oddly, Gore seems to say that people are somehow above the rest of creation, yet at the same time possess no special relationship to a possible god that may warrant said god to work in creation in such a way as to preserve humanity.

The Psalmist writes, “what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” Additionally, John confirms that, despite all our shortcomings, God does care for mankind. Jesus, when speaking to his disciples during the last supper, said, “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Jesus’ own words confirm for us that it is possible to know God. God is a personal being – one of the many attributes we acquired from being created in God’s own image. Therefore, in regard to our relationship to the Creator, we can say: first, that we are created in His image; second, that God does value us in a way that distinguishes us from the rest of creation; and third, we can personally interact with God as a result of the obedience of the Son. Our ability to know God personally by definition sets us apart from the rest of creation.

As I stated earlier, Gore paints a somewhat grim outlook for the human race. His message clearly suggests that if we (human beings) do not do something about rising CO2 levels soon and change the way in which we use the earth’s resources, we will become extinct. However, would God, who delights in a personal relationship with humanity and the rest of Creation, really allow such an end to happen? I feel that I can confidently say, “No.” At least, not until the end times when the Son returns to establish the new heaven and new earth.

But does that then give us the liberty to use the rest of creation however we want? Not at all. On a certain level, to exploit the world God has commissioned us to care for would be to disrespect God’s divine creativity. Some would also consider it a blatant act of disobedience.

It is my feeling that human beings do have a God-given responsibility to practice environmental stewardship. With energy technology advancement often comes higher prices. However, the long-term environmental benefits outweigh the higher up-front costs. Working to improve the efficiency of solar energy collectors, wind power, and hydrogen-powered generators are investments that would pay off in the future. We would begin to rely less on electricity generated by coal and oil, and more on limitless, naturally-occurring processes. Likewise, increasing the number of communities offering recycling as part of a resident’s monthly trash bill can also have a profound effect on the environment. The more recycling that happens, the more recycled products that will be available for packaging and manufacturing. This would reduce the amount of land occupied by landfills near our major cities resulting in more green space. Higher fuel-efficiency standards (resulting in fewer emissions) on American-made and American-sold vehicles would also help to reduce pollutants and “green house” gasses near metropolitan areas. If American drivers are using less fuel, then less oil is needed by American refineries. Logically, a decrease in demand should result in lower fuel costs. I would also propose a significant overhaul of our transportation infrastructure. In Europe, electric rail has been used as a practical alternative to air and vehicle travel. Public transportation is essential in many European cities. All I can do is ask, “Why not here?”

My motivation for implementing such improvements is grounded in my understanding of what is means to be a good steward of God’s creation. I have no fears of a catastrophic end to mankind. But I do recognize an imperative to care for what God has given us. I see no reason to wait until the economy naturally demands such changes; there are things that we can be doing right now to minimize our effect on the climate. By comparison, Gore never suggests any solutions; he merely presents his personal version of an environmental doomsday prophecy. As Christians, we have a much better (bigger) reason for caring for the environment. Our reason is grounded firmly in Scripture and our motivation is directly linked to our faith in the Creator.

Filed under: Bible Study, Christian Living, Philosophy, Theology