When would "nonpoint source pollution" become a sin?

[lynnvinc]

I know the Holy Fathers have spoken out about our responsibility in reducing environmental harms, and it is obvious that a person who knowingly emits toxic pollution enough to kill a person is committing sin (that’s just another name for poisoning a person). There are perhaps factory owners that might be culpable of such sins, especially when there are other less harmful alternatives. This would be a case of “point source pollution.”

However, most of us are also involved in emitting small amounts of pollution in our daily lives that in single acts over short timeframes probably do no harm at all. This is referred to as “nonpoint source pollution,” because it is difficult or impossible to trace back who emitted the pollution due to there being so many emitting such pollution. However, over many months, years, or even decades of that single person habitually emitting that pollution, the pollution might actually harm or even kill some people. There is some pollution that remains in the environment for long time periods, so there would be a cumulative effect over time.

There is also the issue of many people emitting pollution, which if a single person emits it would not harm anyone, but the cumulative effect of 100, 1000, or 10,000 people emitting might harm or kill some people.

Of course, there is also the issue of whether people are aware of that pollution being harmful, or whether they perhaps refused to pay attention to those who told them it was dangerous.

There is also the issue of what standards of “proof” that the emissions cause harm would be necessary for it to amount to a wrong-doing or sin. I’m thinking that we don’t need the 95% scientific certainty that something is harmful to avoid ingesting it or causing others to suffer the consequences of it. Our standards could be lower than scientific standards, as we would want to avoid the false negative of failing to address a true problem, while scientists (to protect their reputations) strive to avoid the false positive of making an untrue claim; they do not want to be the boy who called wolf, but we don’t want to be the villagers who get eaten up. We would want to exercise prudence regarding our own health and that of others, and perhaps 90% confidence, even 60% confidence that something is harmful might be enough to alert us to avoid that.

I’m thinking it would be at least a moral imperfection NOT to do something to reduce one’s own pollution (when one knows it is harmful), especially if there were cost-effective alternatives, but I’m not sure if it would be a sin.

 

[MidnightSun12]

The problem with regards to “scientific proof” especially when discussing the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere is that our proof is being very much twisted and distorted by political agendas. Facts can say whatever you want them to say if you pick the right ones to talk about (and neglect to mention others). Our society puts so much faith in “scientists” and “experts” and what they say. We have to remember, at the end of the day, they are part of the same fallen society that we are…

 

[lynnvinc]

The problem with regards to “scientific proof” especially when discussing the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere is that our proof is being very much twisted and distorted by political agendas. Facts can say whatever you want them to say if you pick the right ones to talk about (and neglect to mention others). Our society puts so much faith in “scientists” and “experts” and what they say. We have to remember, at the end of the day, they are part of the same fallen society that we are…

My question only has to do with at what level (of harm & proof) would nonpointsource pollution become a sin, not whether people believe or disbelieve in something (no matter how much scientific proof there is). However, discussion about whether it would be a sin if people refuse to accept the science even when has reached, say, 60% certainty (due to whatever reason they may have) might be an appropriate topic.

RE global warming, the first studies to reach 95% confidence (.05 on the null) came out in 1995, some 5 years after JPII called on everyone to reduce this problem (and 5 years after I started mitigating). And the evidence has mounted and become much more robust since then. So this is a done deal re scientific certainty.

However, my question is not centered around whether global warming has reached scientific certainty, but about nonpoint source pollution in general, and when it becomes a sin (if at all it does). So please limit discussion to this point. There are other threads that are discussing whether or not global warming is happening or whether or not the science is good or influenced by politics, etc. You can discuss it over there.

 

[lynnvinc]

The problem with regards to “scientific proof” especially when discussing the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere is that our proof is being very much twisted and distorted by political agendas. Facts can say whatever you want them to say if you pick the right ones to talk about (and neglect to mention others). Our society puts so much faith in “scientists” and “experts” and what they say. We have to remember, at the end of the day, they are part of the same fallen society that we are…

Another take on this is that for many environmental problems scientists are hired by industry to cover up the facts, and even gov scientists are sometimes biased in that direction…such as the Love Canal issue. But this is almost always to deny or obscure an environmental problem, not make a claim there is a problem. Take the FDA – it has a dual mandate to serve the public and serve business, so it serves business over the public (and there’s a revolving door of jobs in industry for those gov people who serve business well) – so the FDA has made shambles out of many safety issue and we are being exposed to lots of harmful things (MSG, toxins in fish, etc). Even universities, where much of the science on toxins is done; they get these big grants from industry, and they know who’s buttering their bread. A good read is TOXIC DECEPTION: HOW THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MANIPULATES SCIENCE, BENDS THE LAW AND ENDANGERS YOUR HEALTH, by Fagan and Lavelle, 1997. Some scientists working for the Formaldehyde Institute actually went to prison for falsiflying the science to show that formaldehyde was not harmful.

That’s been my experience over the last 40 or so years. So much so I didn’t really trust scientists and got to the point of thinking there probably really were problems even when they were assuring us there were no problems. So it came as an utter surprise to me that the scientists actually started claiming anthropogenic global warming was real. I thought to myself they sure are gluttons for punishment – industries, the gov, and the people are going to jump all over them, bec it is as Gore said, a very inconvenient truth. And that’s what happened.

This brings me to what standards should a layperson follow in figuring out whether their emissions are sins (or whether an environmental problem is harmful to self or others).

As is, scientists, even honest ones, are extremely reticient in their claims. And this is understandable because they have to protect their reputations, they have to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims, so they usually do not make claims unless they reach 95% confidence (.05 on the null); they cannot afford to be the boy who calls wolf, or no one will believe them again. OTOH, laypersons, doctors, and policy makers concerned about life issues and safety would be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address true problems. What if a doctor were to tells a patient that there is only 92% confidence that the lump is cancerous, so come back in a few years to see if it gets up to 95% and then they can operate? Or a parent gives their child some juice because studies have found it is only 65% certain to be harmful to or kill the kid, not the 95% required by science.

Now sometimes we are willing to take life and death risks if doing so will bring us fortune or fame or other benefits. We drive to work (essential to our livelihood), even tho driving entails some risks of being in an accident or suffering from local car pollution (I advise asthmatics to move closer to work so they don’t have to drive for hours to get there). We probably won’t take risks, if the benefits are very tiny and inessential to our well-being.

Also we have to also look at whether there are alternatives to what we consider essential to our life and happiness, if that thing or action involves risks or harms to ourselves or others (like moving closer to work).

In many cases there are good alternatives, and even ones that turn out better (e.g., saving us money) than the original harmful thing or behavior.

God’s guidance helps us to understand the problems and dangers, and also to find alternatives to doing harmful and dangerous things. We just need to be open to God’s tremendous graces. God does not want us to live in sin or in structures of sin; He will help us extricate ourselves from these if we truly desire to do so.

 

[Richard320]

I can think of one. The “check engine” light on your car is flashing, and the car is running rough, and you do nothing about it.

The flashing of the light indicates a “catalyst-destroying misfire.” A misfire means the gasoline that entered your engine did not ignite and is instead heading right out the exhaust unburned and wasted. And in the process, damaging the catalytic converter which reduces emissions.

If your car is a 4 cylinder, and you have a severe misfire, 25% of the gasoline is wasted. That is not good stewardship. And you are emitting a whole lot of hydrocarbons, a trail of them behind your car.

 

[lynnvinc]

I can think of one. The “check engine” light on your car is flashing, and the car is running rough, and you do nothing about it.

The flashing of the light indicates a “catalyst-destroying misfire.” A misfire means the gasoline that entered your engine did not ignite and is instead heading right out the exhaust unburned and wasted. And in the process, damaging the catalytic converter which reduces emissions.

If your car is a 4 cylinder, and you have a severe misfire, 25% of the gasoline is wasted. That is not good stewardship. And you are emitting a whole lot of hydrocarbons, a trail of them behind your car.

That’s a very good example. I didn’t know about it, and our old car had the “check engine” light flashing for the last couple of years we drove it. We kept taking it in, and they kept telling us it was nothing.

Now we have a Chevy Volt, but it also has an ICE engine, so we’ll be on the lookout hereafter.

I also know that keeping tires inflated and hypermiling can increase miles per gallon and reduce pollution. One of my students did his paper on how braking is very polluting, so hypermiling would also help reduce that pollution.

 

[Cristiano]

I know the Holy Fathers have spoken out about our responsibility in reducing environmental harms, and it is obvious that a person who knowingly emits toxic pollution enough to kill a person is committing sin…

This is your first statement and assumption for the rest of your argument but I think that this first statement is intrinsically wrong. The second part of your statement makes appeal to something that should be obvious to all (as you stated it) but it is not obvious to me. My take here is that you are building a straw man that can be easily falsified.

 

[Ancient1]

The responsibility of an individual to control the unpredictable forces, interactions, reactions and ultimately harmful (in 1 year, 10 or 500) chemicals, wastes or other substances has been blown out of proportion. You almost get the idea it’s more of a mortal sin to drive an SUV than to commit adultery. “Faithful Stewardship” is NOT the same thing as “Save the Planet.” God is ultimately responsible for the planet, we are merely stewards, and, due to the fact that almost everything in this realm is controlled by government agencies, the UN and other gigantic bureaucracies, it is perhaps a sin to be overly obsessive about it. It’s unrealistic to think you really make that much difference.

Do what you can do. If you have recycling in your area, do that, but if it’s difficult (say you’re in a wheelchair) then I don’t believe you have a “moral imperative” to recycle.

Jesus did not come to make this world a pristine paradise, but to prepare us for the next world. People carry “green” to extremes, composting, only home grown veggies, cloth diapers, no plastic bags, etc. That’s OK for them, if they feel good and like to do it. But we are not obligated to go to those extremes.

It’s so funny to me that people vehemently argue about the “morality” or “social obligation” or “green need” to drive a Prius or Smart Car. YOU ARE STILL USING FOSSIL FUELS! If you are so committed to “saving the planet” give up driving entirely! Why is a V-8 SUV wrong and a Honda Fit is honorable and good? It’s only a matter of DEGREE, the sin is the same. If it were a sin.

Also look back thru history, pollution was vastly worse (and unregulated) during the Industrial Revolution and somehow we did not trigger “global warming.”

Save the Planet has got to be secondary to Save your Soul.

 

[Cristiano]

The responsibility of an individual to control the unpredictable forces, interactions, reactions and ultimately harmful (in 1 year, 10 or 500) chemicals, wastes or other substances has been blown out of proportion. You almost get the idea it’s more of a mortal sin to drive an SUV than to commit adultery. “Faithful Stewardship” is NOT the same thing as “Save the Planet.” God is ultimately responsible for the planet, we are merely stewards, and, due to the fact that almost everything in this realm is controlled by government agencies, the UN and other gigantic bureaucracies, it is perhaps a sin to be overly obsessive about it. It’s unrealistic to think you really make that much difference.

Do what you can do. If you have recycling in your area, do that, but if it’s difficult (say you’re in a wheelchair) then I don’t believe you have a “moral imperative” to recycle.

Jesus did not come to make this world a pristine paradise, but to prepare us for the next world. People carry “green” to extremes, composting, only home grown veggies, cloth diapers, no plastic bags, etc. That’s OK for them, if they feel good and like to do it. But we are not obligated to go to those extremes.

It’s so funnyto me that people vehemently argue about the “morality” or “social obligation” or “green need” to drive a Prius or Smart Car. YOU ARE STILL USING FOSSIL FUELS! If you are so committed to “saving the planet” give up driving entirely! Why is a V-8 SUV wrong and a Honda Fit is honorable and good? It’s only a matter of DEGREE, the sin is the same. If it were a sin.

Also look back thru history, pollution was vastly worse (and unregulated) during the Industrial Revolution and somehow we did not trigger “global warming.”

Save the Planet has got to be secondary to Save your Soul.

While I agree that we should not go overboard and to reach the point of a deification of mother hearth, I also read a lot of rationalizations in your post. Sinful behaviors can be matter of degrees, a behavior might not be sinful up to a point and then it can became sinful. Having domain on something implies much more responsibilities that you seem to consider. Just because something bad did not happen in the past that does not imply that we do not have a moral imperative to proper behaviors. That can be equivalent to saying that if a teenager did not get his girlfriend pregnant in the past he is then justified to keep having premarital relationships.

 

[lynnvinc]

The responsibility of an individual to control the unpredictable forces, interactions, reactions and ultimately harmful (in 1 year, 10 or 500) chemicals, wastes or other substances has been blown out of proportion.

Not sure what you mean. That benzene and 2nd hand smoke, etc do no harm? How about carbon monoxide building up in one’s closed garage? Or leaf burning, when the neighbor has pleaded not to do that bec their daughter has severe asthma. The girl came home from school one day (in IL) and collapsed and died before she could make it to the front door. I’m sure the neighbor burning leaves probably didn’t fully understand the harm he was doing, but are you saying it could not have possibly been due to the leaf burning, or that it was the girl’s responsibility to where a gas mask, or …?

You almost get the idea it’s more of a mortal sin to drive an SUV than to commit adultery.

It all depends. The person might not have much control re the adultery (might be a sex maniac), but buying an SUV is something more under one’s control, something “premeditated.” Also, whatever happened to the good old station wagons for people with large families?

SUV’s are basically light trucks built as passenger vehicles, and light trucks/SUVs are about the most polluting personal vehicles on the road. I read that 24% of Texans have light trucks, but only 1% actually need them in their work. It’s some kind of macho thing here (which even many women are into). I see them everywhere and nearly none have cargo, and nearly all have only one person.

One thing that could be done is buy an engery efficient, less polluting car, then rent an SUV or truck when needed (if one only needs one 4 or 5 times a year).

And the final point about SUVs is they are very ugly, and should be banned just on that basis alone It’s a form of visual pollution.

“Faithful Stewardship” is NOT the same thing as “Save the Planet.” God is ultimately responsible for the planet, we are merely stewards, and, due to the fact that almost everything in this realm is controlled by government agencies, the UN and other gigantic bureaucracies, it is perhaps a sin to be overly obsessive about it. It’s unrealistic to think you really make that much difference.

It is good the gov is trying to reg things (at least on the books), since passing laws against things like car driving is totally out of the question.

I do agree in our earthly terms what we do to reduce our pollution is merely a drop in the bucket or grain of sand on the beach, but as Mother Teresa said, it doesn’t matter how much or how little one does to help, our love makes it infinite. There’s no earthly calculus for it. I’d propose a “Little Way of Environmental Healing.” Even taking a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms, if done with love and a desire to reduce one’s harm, I think would be valuable in the sight of the Lord. Maybe I’m foolish and stupid, but that’s how I’m proceeding.

Do what you can do. If you have recycling in your area, do that, but if it’s difficult (say you’re in a wheelchair) then I don’t believe you have a “moral imperative” to recycle.

God knows our limitations and only expect us to do what we can.

Also, I figure if we can’t reduce in one area, then there might be some other area in which we can emit. The person in the wheelchair might have other way to serve God.

It’s like my husband had to reduce his cholesterol, so he cut out red meat altogether so he could take his quota in shrimp (which he loves); or he has to eat rice nearly every day (being from India) – and rice entails large greenhouse gas emissions – but we reduce our GHGs in other ways.

We have been able to reduce our pollution & resource usage pretty substantially over the past 43 years of our marriage, without crimping our lifestyle,without sacrificing (in our eyes), by living close to work, for instance. But there have been times when my job was some 40 miles away from his (and no public transportation), so we bought energy efficient cars for my long commutes, and I sometimes found people to share the drive, thereby cutting the pollution in half.

God gave us brains and hearts and expects us to use them (not only polluting resources).

Jesus did not come to make this world a pristine paradise, but to prepare us for the next world. People carry “green” to extremes, composting, only home grown veggies, cloth diapers, no plastic bags, etc. That’s OK for them, if they feel good and like to do it. But we are not obligated to go to those extremes.

All I’m familiar with is cloth diapers, since it’s been some 40-50 years since I’ve had to change diapers. So tell me more about these paper diapers…

We love gardening and growing a few veggies and fruits – it’s a pleasure for us, not a burden.

There are a myriad of things a person can do to reduce their harm to others via environmental harms. I’d suggest doing those thing that are fun, that are easy, that are feasible and doable, that save money and don’t cost, and certainly are within a person’s means and time constraints. Then take their “pollution quota” in things they want to do – like long trips to the beach. Once we get more time, that’s where we’re headed, even though it means we’ll have to drive on gasoline about 2/3s of the 120 mile round trip (our car only goes 40 miles on wind-generated electricity).

God wants us to have full joy, but to be frank, the only real way to have that is to seek God alone, and be detached from all else that is not God. Nada, nada, nada, as St. John of the Cross would say. Detached from the big and small things alike. Whether a bird is tied down by a heavy chain or a light thread, he will not be able to fly to God.

If we would follow the saints and seek only God and His will and kingdom, then there would probably be no pollution.

 

[lynnvinc]

This is your first statement and assumption for the rest of your argument but I think that this first statement is intrinsically wrong. The second part of your statement makes appeal to something that should be obvious to all (as you stated it) but it is not obvious to me. My take here is that you are building a straw man that can be easily falsified.

Here are some examples of point source pollution that decision-makers in companies knew could greatly harm, even kill people.

Navajo uranium miners were not given protective gear as their Anglo counterparts were, resulting in them having 85 times the lung cancer death rate as the general populations (note their air in that region is pristine…the highest quality, so it wasn’t from polluted air).

An Agent Orange (and other highly toxic chemicals) factory was built in the middle of a poor Hispanic neighborhood with 2 schools within a block. Factory workers and residents were not told of the dangers; factory workers were not given protective gear. There was nothing to collect the toxic run-off – the toxic chemicals spilled through the wooden slat floors to the ground. Children played in the effluents. No fence was put around it to keep curious children out. Now people are dying. There’s high level of birth defects and stillbirths (one year there were no live births in the entire town…all stillbirths). One young man has had 4 kidney transplants and brain surgery. The very few who received some compensation, it wasn’t nearly enough to pay for their medical expenses (maybe a few thousand dollars).

I’m thinking this might amount to some type of sin on the part of the decision-makers.

There are many many cases like this across the nation. They just don’t make the nightly news, and their towns would like to bury the stories, bec it lowers property values, etc.

This thread is not about those egregious behaviors that result in gross harm and death, but about our everyday behaviors that cumulatively (or in conjunction with many others and their behaviors) cause harm and death. And I’m really not sure if this nonpoint source pollution is a sin…or it’s just a good thing to reduce it, like doing some charity toward others.

 

[Cristiano]

Here are some examples of point source pollution that decision-makers in companies knew could greatly harm, even kill people.

Navajo uranium miners were not given protective gear as their Anglo counterparts were, resulting in them having 85 times the lung cancer death rate as the general populations (note their air in that region is pristine…the highest quality, so it wasn’t from polluted air).

An Agent Orange (and other highly toxic chemicals) factory was built in the middle of a poor Hispanic neighborhood with 2 schools within a block. Factory workers and residents were not told of the dangers; factory workers were not given protective gear. There was nothing to collect the toxic run-off – the toxic chemicals spilled through the wooden slat floors to the ground. Children played in the effluents. No fence was put around it to keep curious children out. Now people are dying. There’s high level of birth defects and stillbirths (one year there were no live births in the entire town…all stillbirths). One young man has had 4 kidney transplants and brain surgery. The very few who received some compensation, it wasn’t nearly enough to pay for their medical expenses (maybe a few thousand dollars).

I’m thinking this might amount to some type of sin on the part of the decision-makers.

There are many many cases like this across the nation. They just don’t make the nightly news, and their towns would like to bury the stories, bec it lowers property values, etc.

This thread is not about those egregious behaviors that result in gross harm and death, but about our everyday behaviors that cumulatively (or in conjunction with many others and their behaviors) cause harm and death. And I’m really not sure if this nonpoint source pollution is a sin…or it’s just a good thing to reduce it, like doing some charity toward others.

Here you are showing the fallacy of your postulates. You are using a few cases that could be true to make a generalization that is false. I think that you should trying to define new sins and you should try to get people to buy into you logic. People do not have an interest in change unless they see some real gain into it, you can either coerce them if you have the power of convince them. You are not the magisterium and thus what you are trying to show with faulty logical steps is not going to buy you any allies. However, a lot of things that you say are true and it would help if people would listen to you instead of spending time to argue against it but you have to present your ideas in a way that resonates with people. I think that your trying to do what is proper but I encourage you to present it as a path to improve holiness and not as sin. Usually a lot of Latin Catholics are very legalistic and unless you prove that the act is grave matter they are going to treat it as a simple venial sin and they just do not focus on it. I want to reassure you that I do not argue with your drive to do what is proper, I simply disagree with the method of getting people to consider what you are trying to do.

… And I’m really not sure if this nonpoint source pollution is a sin…or it’s just a good thing to reduce it, like doing some charity toward others.

The point is that it does not matter if it is a sin or not, what it matters is that we should be charitable toward others. Teach other people what is reasonable to do as charity, one step at the time, and you will do a lot of good.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here you are showing the fallacy of your postulates. You are using a few cases that could be true to make a generalization that is false. I think that you should trying to define new sins and you should try to get people to buy into you logic.

I don’t think killing people is a new sin (even if now we have many new ways to kill), but of course whether it amounts to a sin has to do with what the knowledge and intent of the persons were. If they knew their actions could cause deaths, but they didn’t care because to reduce the risk of death (with protective gear and other measures) would have been expensive and reduced their profits – that would probably be a sin. The fact that the people they didn’t care enough about were people of color, sort of adds to that somewhat – the fact that they considered some types of people to be sub-human, “written-off people,” or not worthy of protection from harms I think may also be a sin. But this is something that really only applies to people in power who make the decisions, not to the general public…even tho it would be good for us to be aware of such issues behind the products we buy.

I just today became aware of some high pollution involved in a resource contained in a product I recently bought, and I feel bad about it – I didn’t cause the pollution, but I “rewarded” the people who did do the pollution. I hope and pray they get their act together and reduce that pollution and harm in the future.

People do not have an interest in change unless they see some real gain into it, you can either coerce them if you have the power of convince them. You are not the magisterium and thus what you are trying to show with faulty logical steps is not going to buy you any allies. However, a lot of things that you say are true and it would help if people would listen to you instead of spending time to argue against it but you have to present your ideas in a way that resonates with people. I think that your trying to do what is proper but I encourage you to present it as a path to improve holiness and not as sin. Usually a lot of Latin Catholics are very legalistic and unless you prove that the act is grave matter they are going to treat it as a simple venial sin and they just do not focus on it. I want to reassure you that I do not argue with your drive to do what is proper, I simply disagree with the method of getting people to consider what you are trying to do.

The point is that it does not matter if it is a sin or not, what it matters is that we should be charitable toward others. Teach other people what is reasonable to do as charity, one step at the time, and you will do a lot of good.

I agree with you. My method doesn’t work at all – it turns people off. I remember some 20 years ago I wanted the motto of our parish’s Environmental Committee to be “SKiP - Stop Killing People,” because I thought “Save the Earth” (which the sister in charge of our group proposed) was not accurate. We did, however, go with “Save the Earth.”

I’m also thinking that you never see statues of St. John of the Cross. Plenty of St. Therese. They both are saying similar things but in different ways, but St. JnX’s “nada, nada, nada” is a turn-off for many, even though it is a draw for me.

Bless you for your advice. I’ll try to follow it…

 

[Cristiano]

…I’m also thinking that you never see statues of St. John of the Cross. Plenty of St. Therese. They both are saying similar things but in different ways, but St. JnX’s “nada, nada, nada” is a turn-off for many, even though it is a draw for me.

Bless you for your advice. I’ll try to follow it…

That is a very acute observation. You must remember that St. Therese, of Lisieux I assume, tends to touch very simple people as well as very spiritual people while St. John of the Cross, like some other heavy duty mystics, seems to require a different spiritual and cultural level.

 

[novice100]

Hello,
My conscience is currently deeply troubled by how cars emit pollutants that are harmful to others. I live in a developing country where many individuals take public transportation without windows. It occurred to me that the fumes my car emits are negatively influencing the health of others. lynnvinc, you are the first Christian I have met who has expressed a similar worry concerning emitting small amounts of pollution. Could someone please help me by explaining to me why emitting small amounts of harmful pollution is or is not a sin? As of now, my conscience is demanding that I give up driving, which I do not want to do. Arguments based on scripture would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hello,
My conscience is currently deeply troubled by how cars emit pollutants that are harmful to others. I live in a developing country where many individuals take public transportation without windows. It occurred to me that the fumes my car emits are negatively influencing the health of others. lynnvinc, you are the first Christian I have met who has expressed a similar worry concerning emitting small amounts of pollution. Could someone please help me by explaining to me why emitting small amounts of harmful pollution is or is not a sin? As of now, my conscience is demanding that I give up driving, which I do not want to do. Arguments based on scripture would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

I don’t think emitting non-point source pollution (as when driving an ICE car) is a serious sin, but perhaps something we should work on reducing within our abilities and the framework of our other duties. I think perhaps the sinfulness (or the responsibility to act) may have to do with the level of our understanding that this pollution causes harm. So you are blessed, but also charged with striving to reduce in whatever ways you can.

There are many things we can do to reduce car pollution without giving up the car. If there is public transportation available and it is convenient in terms of schedule, time to get there, how close it is at starting and ending points, and expense, then one could take that at least now and then to off-set driving the car (maybe once or twice a week). In our area there is hardly any public transportation unfortunately, but up in Aurora, IL when I taught a course in downtown Chicago I would often take the train and it was actually fun; another place I taught in Chicago would have been very difficult to get to, so I drove.

Moving closer to work/schools is also a possibility, if the place and home have comparable specs to the ones farther away (price, amenities, etc). Since the 1970s when there was an oil crisis and I was concerned about saving resources for future generations, we have always chosen to live as close as possible to work if we could find a home with our specs. Sometimes, however, while my husband worked within a mile or two from home, I would have to go to a university or work far away. In those cases I would seek out others and carpool as much as possible (cutting driving my car almost in half). If one is close enough to work they can sometimes offset some driving by walking or cycling, which I did to some extent in Aurora when I taught at the university 8 blocks away – when the weather was not bad.

Hypermiling (you can look it up on the web) is another way to reduce without giving up the car. Some people can nearly double their miles per gallon that way – also saves money and car repairs.

Efficient cars are also a good way to go – ones that get better mileage, taking into consideration whether space is enough for the number of people that will be traveling in it.

Electric vehicles are another option. I know they are available in Chennai, India (Rav4). This is as long as they cover the needs re space, mileage range, etc. One can then also think about going on alt energy – some solar and/or wind – to help generate the electricity for the cars.

I had been waiting over 20 years (from 1990 to 2012) before I finally got an EV – a Chevy Volt that goes seamlessly onto gasoline after about 38 miles to keep the battery charged. We very rarely drive more than 38 miles in a day, so we don’t use my gasoline. I had bypassed the hybrid cars, being temporarily satisfied with old used cars that were only sort of efficient, just waiting for an EV. That’s because we live close to work, and don’t drive much, so it would have been a huge expense to by a hybrid just for some small reductions in pollution, and I wanted to save our money to put into an EV. The following year we put up solar panels – our electricity was already 100% wind from Green Mountain, so the solar was more a way to save us money.

There are also some pollution and harms issues with alt energy and EV batteries, etc, but these are far offset by the less harm they do re emissions from petrol burning.

I need to also mention that my spirit was willing for many decades, but my knowledge and will were weak. Doing all this required prayer and help from God. And He did greatly help.

I’m sure with all that we’ve done we still cause more harm than a typical person in a developing nation. There is still much more for us to do…