If you have read my post does biofuel kill people?, then you might be interested to read this article in today's The Age newspaper online. Seems the UK has wisened up, hopefully others will follow suit.
Read more...Following on from my last post, I read an article in The Age newspaper today which alarmed me:
"The biofuel boom is diverting grain, sugar and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks. Indeed, biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%, far more than previously expected."
and goes on to state that as a result:
"The World Bank estimates that rising food prices have pushed 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line."
So, while Fuel companies may be promoting biofuel as a clean, green, 'feel good' alternative to petrol, it may actually be far worse for the world than straight petrol! I suppose this is one of the things I had in mind in my last post. Changes to our living as simple as the things we buy can potentially have a far greater impact than if we sell our houses and give the money to the poor.
I also confirmed that the world's poor are likely poor due to exploitation. I found two good sites on this topic through the world vision newsletter called Don't trade lives!, and Ethical consumerism,which may be worth checking out. The second site goes down to the level of rating different brands on their ethical production.
Just a few thoughts on some practical choices we can make for the better of our race and environment.
"Whoever has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).
Tonight we watched a movie called Beyond Borders with Clive Owen and Angelina Jolie. It is a 'love story' set amidst aid work in war-torn countries that has some interesting and thought-provoking aspects. The wealthy Sarah Beauford is inspired by publicity stunt at a several-hundred-dollar per head charity function she attended. The passionate Dr. Nick Callahan parades in an Ethiopian refugee and asks why the organisation hosting the event has cut funding to the project supporting the child's village/camp. Sarah goes off with about $50K to deliver food and medical supplies to the camp and we the audience are confronted with the realities of life that about 50 million members of earth's human population face.
While the film, in true Hollywood fashion, then goes on to marginalise the refugee aspect to make the love interest the main focus, we the audience are left with the images of the plight of so many people and, if we have any heart, cannot help but to be moved to some extent. Perhaps the director used the images of Sarah's extravagant wealth back home as a contrast mechanism to the situation of the refugees, but it seemed that she was actually a selfish person, more concerned with her love for the doctor than anything else, including her own kids. She did not alter her way of life or her consumption after being confronted with what she saw, and I think in the end we are much the same.
After seeing movies such as this one, and others like Hotel Rwanda, Water, Blood Diamond, etc. what actually changes in the way we live? Why is it that the image and knowledge of human beings suffering does not move us to love them, and to act? I am very challenged and disturbed by this thought. As a Christian especially I hear the words of my God:
"Whoever has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).
It was only today that Adrianna was asking me if God has a will for us buying a place to live, and which property would be a more godly one to buy? It was also today that my pastor was talking to me about Christian worldview and integrating it into our lives (so it is not just something partially formed in our minds). I think this is a big issue. After all, are our Christian worldviews Christian at all? If a worldview is an underpinning understanding of life that informs and directs our attitudes and decisions then our life would reflect that worldview. Yet what I see is not lives that reflect the teachings of Christ, but lives which are not much different from anyone else in the western world. Sure, it is less likely for a Christian to get 'plastered/smashed/hammered', but apparently it is just as likely as any other person for a Christian to get divorced or commit adultery, or lie, cheat, steal. And even if we were able to live without any of these sins the world would be a better place, but in reality this is just a diversion from a more serious issue.
If our God is the God of love who commands us also to love one another (1 John 4:7-21), and if love is expressed in concrete acts such as the apostle John as described above, then why are we unaffected when we see our brother in need, and why does nothing change? How can we preach God's love in Jesus on one hand and ignore this injustice on the other?
Getting to the heart of the immediate problem, what is the godly thing and the right thing to do now in light of being confronted with the knowledge that there are millions of people suffering and starving? Would it be more godly not to buy a good house but to get the cheapest thing we could find and give the rest of the money away? Or would this be just a bandaid solution? Or again, even if it was a bandaid solution and would not make any lasting difference, would it still make a difference to one person (like the parable of the starfish)?
Is it best to give continuous, sustained small gestures in the hope that the collective result of these will make a difference (e.g. sponsor children, or regular donations)? Or is it more about getting to the heart of the problem: Why are these people starving and suffering in the first place? It seems to be a combination of local and global politics, exploitation of the third world by first world countries, third world debt, drought and natural disaster, war and corruption. At the heart of all these also is human greed and dehumanisation of our fellow human beings, i.e. people becoming reduced to a means to an end.
Is it a matter of putting more pressure on our own government to act and, for our part, being willing to make sacrifices at a national/state level in the way that our taxes are used? Would we be doing our part for global warming if we spent our disposable cash on foreign aid rather than the latest gadgets and passing thrills, and if we cut back our consumption so that others could also eat and have shelter and medicine?
Can organisations such as Tear Australia provide solid options to help, or are all our small gestures only actions to appease our consciences? Should we be appeasing our consciences at all, or should our motivation be pure compassion, real solidarity with our fellow human beings?
This is such a difficult problem, and I think a lot of people struggle with how to respond. Doing something is better than doing nothing, but is there more that we can do than something?
I would appreciate some honest feedback here!
© Blogger template Leaving by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
