… and to be honest I’m not very. I fly far too frequently, use my car too much and while I am now a regular recycler (following some education from a former housemate and the joy of the Bryson House black box) there is still so much more that could be done.

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, which I recently saw for the second time suggests that if we don’t have a go the consequences will be disastrous. Certainly there is controversy about the claims that he makes (mostly about how he spins certain realities rather than a dispute regarding the actual facts) and not everyone agrees on his interpretation of events. Equally there is the school of thought that even if the information is only partly correct it’s better to be on the safe side and take heed of what Gore is saying.

About 10 years ago I had to write an essay for my International Relations class on whether, in a global sense, the environment was everybody’s responsibility, somebody’s responsibility or nobody’s responsibility. Back then, before climate change became the thing to talk about, it made sense to me that from Genesis 1 the environment was surely everyone’s responsibilty. I was slightly concerned how my tutor would react at my use of a biblical text as the starting point for my essay but thankfully he didn’t have too much of a problem.

The thought however that other Christians might not accept this point of view, and did in fact see global warming and climate change as a means to the end of the world they were eagerly anticipating anyway, did not cross my tiny mind. But this was brought home to me again at the end of last year when someone suggested to me that, in their consideration, following the fall of communism the environment was the next big thing for the lefties to get their teeth into. How do you answer that one?

While you would think this line of argument might be most popular amongst some groups of Americans there is some evidence within the current presidential election race that this stereotype of US evangelical Christianity might have finally met it’s challengers.

But then there is the danger of what has been dubbed ‘climate porn‘ – when the messages on climate change become so apocalyptic that a sense of paralysis sets in. Why bother doing anything when the problem is so big it’s unlikely to make a difference anyway?

Tearfund have been keen to point out that climate change has been having the biggest impact on those who are the poorest around the world. Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa now having to dig through up to 30cms of sand before they can plant their crops are just one example. Climate change is in fact now an issue of global justice.

Tearfund’s suggested  Carbon Fast for Lent is a novel way to impart the message that we can all make small changes in our lives which can have a big impact somewhere else. But the inconvenient truth is that not only is it going to take more than 40 days to make an impact but it is also going to take more than putting our hands in our wallets. It’s going to mean a whole lifestyle change.

The problem is that giving money to support an HIV/AIDS project in a developing country, providing support in the aftermath of a natural disaster, or indeed visiting a country to find out a little more don’t require as much from us as individuals. Our bank balances may feel a little lighter, there may have been some minor inconvenience in making a foreign trip, but in the end life goes on.

Tackling climate change however requires something more and maybe that is why we are more reluctant to address it. But perhaps it’s also a suggestion that we’ve been let off too lightly in our response to other issues of global justice in the past.