Signs in the heavens; distress on the earth
'Net Zero'. A new ethic? A new religion?
Peter Carruthers
In Seeds of Prayer for spring 2024, we noted:
Weather extremes have become the 'new norm', while ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ have become a 'new ethic', shaping both public policy and cultural values. Both are having a profound impact on farming and the land.
The climate-change narrative is complex, and calls for much wisdom and discernment; there are alternatives to the mainstream ‘orthodoxy’. God calls us to take care of His earth, and acknowledge our failure to do so. But we are also called to understand the times, see things from His viewpoint (eg Isaiah 24:4-6, 26:9b; Hosea 4:1-3; Haggai 1:5-6), and, ultimately, recognise that the future of the earth does not depend on human effort, but on God's promised redemption and renewal (Romans 8:19-22; 2 Peter 3:13).
Things have moved on since then and we plan to address the issues again (especially from the viewpoint of farming and rural communities) in the forthcoming Seeds of Prayer for spring 2025, and the upcoming Hope Countryside online meeting on 5 April. This article, and more to follow, will provide updates and commentary on the issues. As background to this series, I have just posted an article on my own history with climate change here.
‘Climate change’ is a powerful driver of social ethics
There is no doubt that ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Net Zero’ have become a new moral norm, shaping public policy, cultural values and social ethics.1 The climate-change agenda pervades most aspects of our individual lives and our life as a nation, including politics, economy, business, education, consumption, leisure, farming and food, and even religion.
Most people are, therefore, aware of climate change, and, in some sense, concerned about it. But it is not necessarily their chief concern. Being ‘climate friendly’ has become a widely accepted moral value. But we may not be willing to do very much about it. For many people, climate change concern is a category that has been shaped primarily by popular discourse rather than heartfelt commitment, and a matter for governments rather than individuals.
In a You Gov survey in March last year, 66% of respondents said they were fairly worried (42%) or very worried (24%) about climate change (30% were not worried, and 4% did not know). However, when asked to choose up to “three of the most important issues facing the country at this time”, just 20% ticked ‘the environment’, which came fifth after the economy (54%), health (48%), immigration & asylum (34%) and housing (25%). Other questions suggested that, for most people, climate change was something they were aware of, but did not actively follow, and something governments needed to address; at the same time, most people thought the government was not doing enough.
In a more recent You Gov survey (January 2025) respondents were asked which three of twelve possible catastrophes were the most likely to cause human extinction. Results were compared with the same question asked in May/June 2023.
Climate change came second overall, after nuclear war, with 46% of respondents overall choosing climate change (up from 38% in 2023) and 62% selecting nuclear war (up from 55% in 2023). ‘A pandemic’ came third overall with 31% selecting it.
There were marked differences between different sections of society. ‘Global warming/climate change worried Labour (60%) Lib Dem (60%) and ‘Remain’ (60%) voters a great deal more than Conservative (34%), Reform (19%) and ‘Leave’ (29%) voters.
Climate change also concerned younger people (61% of 18-24s; 50% of 25-49s) more than older people (42% of 50-64s; 36% of over 65s) and ABC1 (52%) social grades more than C2DE (38%) social grades.
In contrast, a takeover by ‘robots/AI’ worried Conservative (13%) Remain (15%) and Leave (16%) voters a little more than it worried Labour (12%) Lib Dem (14%) and ‘Remain’ (13%) voters.
A ‘zombie apocalpyse’ and an ‘alien invasion’ both got 1% of the overall vote. However, zombies got 2% of the 18-24 age group vote, and 2% in Wales and 3% in Scotland. Scotland and over 65s also gave the highest score (2%) to an alien invasion!
In an article published in March 2025, journalist and former broadcaster, John Humphrys summarised the findings of a recent report cataloguing current alarming statistics on climate change, concluding that “our planet is heating up at a dangerous pace” and unless we stop burning fossil fuels, “extreme weather events intensified by climate change will continue to destroy lives and livelihoods.”
Humphrys went on to lament the fact that this story has been “virtually ignored by most of the mainstream news outlets in the country? Could it be”, he asks, “because we’re not talking about it in the pub? Or indeed, it seems, anywhere else. And why is that? It could be,” he suggests, “that we are bored with climate change.” And the reason for this, Humphrys posits, is because it mostly threatens people other than us. “Could it be”, he concludes, “that those who are in charge of delivering our news calculate that we do not want to be endlessly reminded that at the heart of the climate crisis there is a profoundly moral dilemma? The rich enjoying life as usual at the devastating expense of the poor.”
Is ‘climate change’ also a new religion?
In addition to its impact on moral values, many commentators have noted that the climate-change agenda exhibits the characteristics of a religion, complete with a canon of orthodox beliefs (the ‘consensus’), challenged by ‘heretics’ (‘sceptics’, ‘deniers’), plus priests (climate scientists), prophets (eg David Attenborough), ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’, and the need for ‘repentance’ and ‘expiation’.
Writing in 2020, Josef Joffe, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, described the new religion of ‘climatism’ as follows.
“Greta Thunberg, the teenager from Stockholm, is the prophet of a new religion sweeping the West. Call it climatism. Like any religion worthy of the name, it comes with its own catechism (what to believe) and eschatology (how the world will end). Thunberg’s bible is the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2018], which gives us twelve years to save civilisation as we know it.
“Deliverance demands sacrifice, an idea going back to the earliest days of humanity…. Trade cars for bicycles. Stop gorging on meat, whose production destroys forests and poisons the atmosphere with methane. Shrink your carbon footprint by using trains instead of planes. Ditch plastic in favour of hand-knitted shopping bags. Turn down the thermostat and pay a price for carbon dioxide emissions. Such a levy makes economic sense by putting a market price on profligacy, but one can’t help recalling the indulgences condemned by another prophet, Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century.”
In a video interview with The Telegraph in November 2023, Michael Shellenberger sees ‘climatism’, which he sees as the “dominant religion of the Western elites”, as a parody of biblical religion.
“The stories that climate activists tell are identical to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. So there was an idea that before the use of fossil fuels, or if you want to go back further before the dawn of modern agriculture that humans were living in harmony with the environment. Then we ate from the fruit of knowledge, which was knowledge of farming or fossil fuels, depending on where you want to locate the fall, and we then fell from the state of nature and are now living in a fallen world.
“The difference is that traditional religions, including Judaeo-Christian religions, offer some sense of gratitude for what we've been given, a sense of redemption, and, also, the concept of forgiveness; all three of those are missing from the climate change religion. The core values of this religion are hatred of humanity…”
We have known the enemy and it is us
For ‘climatists’ then, humanity is the problem - ‘we have known the enemy and it is us’. The writers of the Club of Rome’s ‘First Global Revolution’ wrote back in 1991:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
We, humanity, and especially Western humanity, have caused the problem and we must solve it or face annihilation; we are guilty and need to expiate our guilt, by sacrificing our lifestyles, comfort, prosperity and, if necessary, our freedoms. As the Guardian newspaper, commenting on the IPCC science report in August 2021, put it: we are as “guilty as hell of the climate crimes of humanity.”
Christians are guilty too
In a detailed article in 2021, I lamented the way that most Christian churches and organisations have uncritically embraced the ‘ethic’ and ‘religion’ of climate change, without really offering the hope of individual and cosmic redemption, which is the heart of the Gospel.
Christian churches, organisations and ministries have overwhelmingly, and seemingly uncritically, adopted this narrative. Most denominations, well-known Christian mission agencies, such as Tear Fund and YWAM, as well as Christian environmental organisations, like A Rocha and John Ray Initiative, are not only providing information, but also acting as advocates for the the prevailing climate-change orthodoxy and global climate-change agenda. In the run up to COP26, they are not just informing people as to what the Conference is about, but also acting as ‘evangelists’ for the agenda the Conference is seeking to advance. Climate change seems to have taken churches and Christian ministries by storm. Many, it seems, have much more enthusiasm for the ‘gospel of net zero’ than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
‘You pays your money and you takes your choice’
In my 2021 article, I categorised stances towards climate change as follows.
The ‘prevailing orthodoxy’, the ‘global consensus’, in simple terms: ‘the climate is changing, it is our fault, it is an ‘emergency’, we only have a few years before we go extinct, we must take radical action now’.
Humanity is the problem, but it will be solved ultimately by nature, by evolution, by the earth itself. A species that destroys its environment will ultimately destroy themselves. Gaia, metaphorically or actually, will tolerate a painful parasite only for so long, and will eventually eliminate it.
The most prevalent alternative to the orthodox position accepts the scientific (IPCC) ‘consensus’, but not the proposed solutions. Climate change is to varying extents real and serious, but humanity has solved such problems before, through technology and innovation, and can do so again. Further, mitigation strategies at the centre of prevailing agenda are both unworkable and would do far more harm than good. In preference to mitigation, they favour adaptation.
The science of climate change is flawed (or worse). Alternative scientific views. argue that the IPCC’s models depend on certain critical and questionable assumptions, and that factoring in different assumptions or invoking different mechanisms produces radically different outcomes.
Where do we go from here?
This article is not intended to provide answers, just to inform reflection, discussion and prayer (and, hopefully, to prompt you to join the online seminar on 5 April). And, there will be more to follow.
In the meantime, however, the closing words of my ‘Hope for the Earth’ series are as good a message of hope as any in the gloom and foreboding of the current climate change scene.
‘Do contemporary environmentalism and the climate change agenda, with its ‘emergency’ discourse, offer hope for the future of the earth? Because they depend on human effort alone my answer is ‘no’.
But in Christ, we are not doomed and neither is the earth; certainly, we shall need to give account of our stewardship of God’s earth and there is every need to take responsibility (and I would argue for Christians to take greater responsibility), but there is no need to panic.
And, as Jesus said, when we see “these things begin to happen”, including turbulence in nature, we are to “look up”, for our redemption and the redemption of the earth itself draws near (Luke 21:28).
“Social ethics are the philosophical or moral principles that, in one way or another, represent the collective experience of people and cultures. This sort of ethics often acts as a sort of “code of conduct” that governs what is and is not acceptable, as well as providing a framework for ensuring that all members of the community are cared for.” (Wise Geek)