Environmental Responsibility: Christian and Non-Religious Views

Why caring for the environment is a moral issue

People depend on the natural world for food, water, energy and places to live. Other living things also depend on healthy habitats. Pollution, deforestation and the overuse of resources can therefore harm both people and other species. Because life is interconnected, damage to nature is not separate from damage to human wellbeing.

Environmental responsibility means recognising a duty to consider and reduce this harm. It raises questions about whose interests matter: people alive now, people in other countries, future generations and the other living things with which we share the planet.

Christians and Humanists can agree that the environment should be protected while giving different reasons for that responsibility.

Dominion: authority over creation

Dominion means authority or control over the natural world. Christians connect this belief with the authority God gives humans in Genesis:

“Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” — Genesis 1:28

Psalm 8:6 expresses a similar idea:

“You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet.”

These passages give humans a special position within creation. They can be understood as permitting people to use natural resources to meet their needs, for example by growing food or obtaining materials for homes.

However, Christians can differ over how far this authority extends and how strongly human needs should take priority. An interpretation that emphasises human control could be used to defend extensive use of nature for human benefit. An interpretation that emphasises responsible rule sees authority as bringing duties towards what is being ruled. Dominion does not have to mean permission to destroy the environment.

Stewardship: caring for something that belongs to God

Stewardship means responsible care. A steward looks after property entrusted to them rather than treating it as their own to use without limits. For Christians, the world belongs to God, and humans are responsible for caring for it on God’s behalf.

Genesis 2:15 describes Adam’s task in the Garden of Eden as working it and taking care of it. This supports the view that using the world and protecting it should go together. Psalm 24:1 provides a reason for that duty:

“The Earth belongs to the Lord and everything on it.”

If creation belongs to God, humans cannot simply claim unlimited ownership. Many Christians also believe that they will be accountable to God for how they have treated the world.

Dominion and stewardship can therefore be complementary: dominion explains humans’ authority, while stewardship explains how that authority should be exercised. A responsible ruler protects what has been placed in their care.

Sustainability and responsibility beyond our own community

Sustainability means meeting present needs without preventing future generations from meeting theirs. It does not mean never using resources. It means considering whether the way they are used can continue without damaging the conditions on which life depends.

For example, reducing waste avoids unnecessary resource use, while using renewable energy can reduce dependence on finite fossil fuels. Protecting habitats helps preserve the living systems on which people and other species depend. Christians can understand these actions as practical expressions of stewardship.

Global citizenship extends responsibility beyond one’s own country. Environmental problems cross borders, so protecting only a local community is not enough. Pollution, resource depletion and climate change can also deepen global inequality, with poorer countries often especially affected.

Christians may express global citizenship by supporting charities that protect the environment and tackle poverty, buying Fairtrade products to support farmers overseas, and living more sustainably themselves. The connection is between belief and action: care for creation includes concern for neighbours elsewhere and for people who will live after us.

Humanist reasons for protecting the world

Humanists do not base environmental duties on a command from God. They use reason, scientific evidence and concern for wellbeing. Humans are part of the natural world, so damaging it threatens the conditions needed for a good life.

This provides a non-religious argument for responsibility: pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss have harmful consequences, and people should work to prevent avoidable suffering. Future generations matter even though they cannot yet speak or vote. Decisions made now can leave them either a healthier planet or serious problems.

Humanists can therefore support the practical aims of stewardship without accepting its religious basis. They favour scientific solutions, informed policy-making and cooperation across national borders. Atheism itself means not believing in God; it does not prescribe one environmental policy, so not every atheist necessarily takes the same position.

Humanist Climate Action puts these ideas into practice. It is a volunteer-led network within Humanists UK which encourages low-carbon, ethical and sustainable living and campaigns for environmentally friendly policies. Its activities include encouraging tree planting, asking people to write to their MPs about climate action, and supporting The Climate Coalition. It also promotes evidence-based discussion and cooperation with other religion or belief organisations. These are aims and activities, not proof that environmental problems have been solved.

Evaluating environmental responsibility

One argument for giving environmental protection high priority is that lasting environmental damage undermines human wellbeing as well as harming other life. Christians can support this through stewardship and accountability to God; Humanists can support it through evidence and concern for present and future beings. Different beliefs can thus lead to shared practical action.

A competing argument is that people also need food, energy, housing and employment now. Restricting resource use without considering these needs could create hardship. Dominion may support using nature for human benefit, but stewardship challenges the claim that every profitable use is justified. Humanist concern for wellbeing likewise requires consideration of both immediate needs and long-term consequences.

A justified conclusion could therefore favour responsible use rather than either unlimited exploitation or a complete ban on using nature. Sustainability aims to balance present needs with future welfare. Individual changes matter, but international cooperation and public policy are also needed because the problems extend beyond what one person can control.