1) although water pollution has increased in Israel, its usage is manifestly superior to that of its neighbors, at least in the application of irrigation. The “green line” that divides Palestine between Israel and the West Bank was not a metaphor, but actual topography. This includes forest reclaimation.

Palestine and the Balkans in general became deforested because of almost a 1000 years of Seljuk/Ottoman Turkish rule. In order to tax landholders, the Turks used trees as markers and taxed trees as well. In such a situation, the only rational thing to do was cut down the trees. This unfortunately exacerbated erosion and caused desertification.

2) The reluctance of +Bartholomew to address the problem of individual sin (homosexuality, fornication, abortion) however is of more grievous concern. People can always reclaim land and reverse ecological disasters, but the inability of individual men and women to recognize their sinful natures will lead to greater ecological disasters down the road.

If I may be so bold to offer an example: the massive use of hormones by women and adolescent girls (such as oral contraceptives) has resulted in the flushing of millions of gallons of these hormons into the seas and rivers which in turn has caused mutations in several different species of fish. As fish are at the bottom of the food chain, this cannot ultimately be good for man himself. I believe that the majority of the earth’s population rely on fish for their protein.

You most certainly have a point when you indicate that it seems that this divide which exists in regards to environmentalism and the EP’s espousal of it is political. Speaking for myself, there is a distaste for some of the venues that he is going to speak at. Speaking as a Rightist myself (conservative with heavy libertarian leanings), I choose not to characterize this divide as political however. Rather I feel that those of us who have committed ourselves to traditional Christianity tend to take a more conservative approach to the human condition as well. What Thomas Sowell calls the “constrained vision.” They tend to feed each other. For example, I believe that the Church should engage society and alleviate its ills to the extent that such ills can be alleviated. I consider it a near-blasphemy for the State to take on the role of the Church (which it has in America since the time of Lincoln, who created the first land-grant universities). How would the State like it if the Church operated a police force or an army for that matter? It is not the province of the Church to regular water supplies, provide electricity, or build roads.

Anyway, I’ve said enough. Please forgive me for any offense.

Our individual and collective sins do degrade the rest of creation but it does not follow that we can solve the problems that sin creates by massive, wasteful, downright wrong-headed political policies that mostly involve beggaring the United States and other productive economies in the name of fairness and justice.

Your implied understanding that somehow the ‘rich’ create the “degraded, polluted landscapes” in the ‘poor’ countries is farcical. It smacks of a kind of neo-mercantilism that is just wrong.

Why are people poor? What is the best way to alleviate their poverty?

By and large the poorest countries are the ones with tyrannical governements who rule from a tyrannical utopian ideological precept of some kind such as Islam or Communism.

Like it or not, industrial capitalism coupled with representative government and fair trade has done more to alleviate poverty by creating wealth and opporutnity than all of the rest of the methods tried put together. It certainly has its problems that contribute to the destruction the creation that is under our authority, but the root of that is once again sin and the concomitant separation from God. BIG JOBS do not necessarily require BIG GOVERNMENT to solve them, in fact often such a solution is worse than the problem. Jesus did not come as a conquerer King in resplendent robes with an army of angels. He was born in cattle stall and went to the Cross.

If the Patriarch would preach the Gospel instead of politics based on non-Christian and even anti-Christian philosophy, that would help!

The message of Stewardship from Orthodox pulpits is limited to one thing–GIVE MONEY!!!. That’s not Biblical stewardship at all.

A general point: I notice there is a marked resistance to the idea that we humans are altering the environment in deleterious ways.

Fr. John, could you point to some specifics?

To understand what the EP is talking about it would be helpful to see (1) the full text of his remarks and (2) a document from the Ecumenical Patriarchate stating what the teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning how we should relate to our physical environment.

Does anyone have a link to the full text of his speech?

Can someone link me to the official Orthodox teaching on what our relationship to the earth (animals, vegetables, and minerals) should be (environmental ethics, stewardship of creation, or whatever the OC calls it)?

Thanks.

Greg

Funny you should mention Israel. That nation’s usage of water has resulted in significant pollution of every river passing through that tiny country. Remember the bicycle racers who fell off a bridge there soem decades ago and inhaled polluted water, which led to their deaths?
Not a very admirable example of stewardship of the land in Israel.

A general point: I notice there is a marked resistance to the idea that we humans are altering the environment in deleterious ways. The topic seems to be connected to notions of ‘left’ and ‘right’. I cannot see what is ‘leftist’ about a CONSERVATIVE approach to natural resources. Why is the bugbear of ‘big government’ invoked at every mention that we people, as co-creators made in God’s image, have a BIG JOB to do here in this world, part of which is not turning it into a living hell. The fact that the poor are the ones who mostly live in this hell-on-earth of polluted, degraded landscapes, should not escape our notice. Is it the fact that class/income has some relation to this issue, and that the rich basically are protected by their wealth from some of the effects of a degraded environment?

I think this all points to unacknowledged guilt. What Patr. Bartholomew seems to me to be saying is that we have a duty toward creation to fulfill, that we will not escape God’s judgment if we persist in a way of life which is suicidal for us as creatures dependent on the resources of our world.

We were created to tend the garden that is this world, not to rape it. And to deny the rape which goes on these days is simply spiritual suicide.

Yes, kind of, but it is more about the ideas informing the project.

John, we do pay for it one way or another. Is it reasonable to expect to take a shower every day, to flush 30 to 40 gallons of potable water down the toilet per person every day and for homes to irrigate lawns that while pretty and really nice to walk on are not as imporatant as feeding people? I suppose Chris will think I am displaying ‘leftist’ thinking again, but there you go. I think it is entirely appropriate to ask questions about our use of natural resources to see if a different pattern of use would allow for more widespread use and benefit. Certainly, private industry should be as much a part of that as possible. However when a materialist industrial/capital model is applied to the land and other natural resources without suffiecent understanding of ways to renew, conserve and manage those resources, it gets ugly pretty quickly.

The San Francisco success was entirely voluntary. After the first year or so, the sacrifice became a normal part of living and no big deal. When the crisis passed I’m sure the old consumption patterns returned. I tend to think real information dispursed widely and non-demogogically will tend to illicit a response that helps everyone. Government tinkering and outright control as is happening in California and Oregon right now, creates problems.

Historically there are five things that have sustained civilizations and allowed them to grow: 1. A relatively homogenius faith; 2. Adequate water; 3. Good waste management; 4. Good food supply; 5. Good defense against outsiders.

We no longer have #1 in the United States and unless the Muslims take over (which could happen demographically), not likely to have.

Water is a particularly volatile issue and we ignore its use and availability at our peril. The alarmists however easily forget the real strides we have made in this country in cleaning up our water. Nevertheless new challenges will are present all the time. Inflexible, ideological decisions will only exacerbate problems.

Michael: Reminds me of the days I sat through extremely boring city council hearings on water filtration systems and waste water treatment plants. Boring, but important. You can assert that we all have a right to clean drinking water, but that doesn’t answer the question of how we will pay for that. Again, we’ve become used to abundant, clean water as part and parcel of living in a prosperous, developed economy. But all of these systems must be paid for through taxation or user charges (your water bill … municipal water is metered usually). And of course the interest on bonds issued to pay for these utilities has to be paid for — often through taxation.

You are right of course, better irrigation methods need to be tried as well as varieties of crops that use less water, but irrigating trees is different than irrigating grass crops such as wheat.

My real point is that while we have a lot of water that doesn’t mean that it is all useable all the time. Water rights, or lack there off, get people killed.

Alarmism is contained in such phrases as “the looting of the planet” and assertions that “humans have lost their original humanity.” It could be that these words have a different context than what the reporter expressed. On their face however, they arouse emotion and don’t contain any clarifying idea, hence “alarmism.” That’s why we have to wait and see what is really meant by these terms.