Email from a subscriber:

1.) Is pollution a sin or is it just unavoidable in our lives? How many things actually “pollute?” I struggle to say that pollution is a sin (as I’ve read from others) because there are many in the world who can’t afford the technologies that we have and I don’t think they’re sinning because they can’t afford cleaner technologies. Also, I see in John 21 that Jesus makes a charcoal fire in order to make breakfast for his disciples. I don’t really know anything about charcoal fires but I imagine it emitted some sort of pollution. 

2.) Do we know the effects of air pollution in the US or is it up for debate with the air being so clean?

First, emitting pollution is not sinful in and of itself. (Consider that at high enough concentrations carbon dioxide, which we exhale at 40,000 parts per million, can become toxic; yet if we don’t exhale, we die. Consider that many substances are pollutants in some circumstances and not in others—fecal waste, urine, toxic metals, toxic chemicals, etc. Location, concentration, control of whether people or other living things are exposed to it, and other factors determine whether something is “pollution” or not.) But every activity we do requires emissions of something, including all the emissions required to grow, transport, and prepare all the foods we eat, which are necessary for our having the bodily energy to do whatever we do. What can elevate it to sin is if we’re doing it in a manner that harms others (including unnecessary harm to nonhuman life or even to the beauty of God’s creation). Read Exodus 21–22.

Second, there are literally hundreds of different things that, in the right location/concentration/exposure circumstances, would qualify as pollutants. (Consider arsenic. There’s a tiny bit of it in some fruits and nuts, and our body chemistry needs a tiny bit of it for survival. But in higher amounts—still very small, but higher than the really tiny amounts we need—it’s lethal.)

Third, there are various ways in which scientists attempt to calculate the number of deaths that can be attributed to air pollution (and various other causes) in America and elsewhere. Those yield a variety of conclusions, such as the data from Statista.com in the graph above.

But beware! Two things make these numbers highly questionable, either as to their accuracy or as to their significance.

(1) As to their accuracy, it’s extremely rare to find a single instance in which it’s possible to say with great confidence that this person died from air pollution and not from a variety of other things with air pollution thrown in as one contributor among many. Essentially, the only circumstances that would justify such a claim about any given person would be those similar to the person’s locking himself in the garage with his vehicle running so as to commit suicide by breathing all the carbon monoxide.

So these numbers come instead from comparing mortality rates (number of deaths per 100,000 population) in various locations and looking for correlations between those rates and the varieties and concentrations of air pollution in the various locations, then extrapolating theoretical death rates attributable to air pollution (per 100,000) from those correlations (which means assuming causation—which can be highly questionable). Other factors than air pollution also contribute to the differing death rates.

Indeed, while the federal Environmental Protection Agency classifies PM 2.5 (particulate matter of 2.5 microns diameter or less) as a harmful pollutant and claims that it causes many deaths in America, it lacks clear empirical evidence for the claim, and there is good evidence that it isn’t.

(2) As to their significance, keep in mind that pretty much all pollution is a byproduct of productive activity, and that what that activity produces is meant to serve man, including to serve man’s survival. Thus, for example, the Washington Post headline “Air pollution from farms leads to 17,900 U.S. deaths per year, study finds” could prompt us to think, “Well, then! We must stop all farming! That would save 17,900 lives a year!” But of course if we did that, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death.

Life is full of tradeoffs. We absolutely cannot avoid them. We can try to minimize the harmful effects and maximize the beneficial effects of everything we do, but we cannot eliminate all the harmful effects. Risk is unavoidable in life, and we can pay the cost of reducing the risk of A only if we’re willing not to spend the same on reducing the risk of B. It’s called opportunity cost, one of the most basic concepts in economics. (The Bible recognizes it: Proverbs 14:4: “Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean, but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox.”)