“There
will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress
among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. People will
faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers
of the heavens will be shaken.”
Luke
21:25-26
The
Advent texts that speak of the “Second Coming” present imagery that is wildly
out of step with the manger scenes and Christmas trees that decorate our homes.
At
least that is usually the case.
This
year the images of apocalypse seem remarkably relevant. And that is pretty much
the heart of the problem.
Honestly,
I don’t know what to say. Or where to begin.
We
have a President elect who has at best a tangential relationship to the truth.
And we have cabinet appointments that are barely believable.
The
nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental
Protection Agency may not be the worst proposed appointment, but it is
bad enough.
In
an editorial criticizing the Pruitt nomination, the New York Times writes:
“This is an aggressively bad choice, a poke in the eye to a long history of bipartisan cooperation on environmental issues, to a nation that has come to depend on the agency for healthy air and drinkable water, and to 195 countries that agreed in Paris last year to reduce their emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases in the belief that the United States would show the way. A meeting Monday between Mr. Trump and Al Gore had raised hope among some that the president-elect might reverse his campaign pledge to withdraw the United States from the Paris accord. The Pruitt appointment says otherwise.”
Mr. Pruitt is not just
critical of the E.P.A.; he wants to dismantle it. As Oklahoma Attorney General
he has joined lawsuits against regulations reducing soot and smog pollution
that crosses state lines and he has fought against regulations that provide
protections against toxic pollutants from power plants.
Perhaps most
troubling, he does not believe in the science of climate change. He is a
proponent of the fossil fuel industry and wants to roll back our commitment to
reducing greenhouse gasses.
For Christians concerned about the stewardship of planet earth, this is serious stuff.
His disagreements with
the E.P.A. are not just about opposing some regulations, though that would be a
problem all by itself. The real issue is that he disagrees with the science
behind the regulations. And his disagreement with the science is ideological
and political rather than scientific.
The bottom line is
that an agency built on science will be directed by a person who does not
believe in science.
Thank
you for reading. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Please feel
free to share on social media as you wish.
there's a typo in your piece in paragraph six "may not" appears twice, sequentially.
ReplyDeleteThank you for noting the typo! I have corrected it.
ReplyDelete