Brian Henning, professor of philosophy and environmental studies at Gonzaga University, intends to provide a teaching text that offers an analysis of the science, politics, economics, and ethics of global warming (15), and he does so admirably. He agrees with the cultural historian Thomas Berry that responding to human-caused climate change is the “great work” of our age. Thus, he provides an extended ethical argument that this great work requires a new way of thinking and acting, grounded in a new understanding of ourselves and our relationship with Earth (16).

The first two chapters set the context for a political and ethical analysis by discussing the scientific evidence for global warming and giving examples of the consequences of climate change. Throughout the text, Henning masterfully provides analogies, metaphors, and similes that clarify his points. For example, he explains the difference between weather and climate by noting first that the natural variability of the weather is like rolling a dice. Just as it is true that over the course of many rolls of the dice, a 1 will appear approximately as many times as a 6, so too in the stable climate of the ten thousand years of recorded history there is a balance of record high and record low temperatures. Thus in the 1950s there were fifty-two record highs and forty-eight record lows. However, in the period between 2000 and 2009 there were twice as many record highs as record lows: climate change has loaded the dice (23–25). Henning concludes that Earth is indeed getting warmer through the amplification of the greenhouse effect because of the increased concentration of greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. It is extremely likely (95 percent) that human activities are causing this global warming. Although there will be regional losers and winners as a result of climate change, losers will be more plentiful, and they will be disproportionately the poor. Some of the changes, such as animal extinctions, will be irreversible.

The remaining chapters (3 through 6) offer an economic, political, and ethical analysis of potential responses to climate change. A market-based approach, which would put a price on carbon, could at least begin to address global warming, but thus far the international political community has been unable to commit to the necessary steps. Moreover, Henning argues that this fundamentally moral issue cannot be adequately outsourced to economics.

The sustainable development paradigm asserts the environmental principle of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It allows maximum extraction consistent with managing the ecosystem. Ecological stewardship (in its religious version) argues that humanity is responsible to God for taking care of creation. Both sustainability and stewardship move away from the capricious domination of Earth by humanity. This is a step in the right direction, but both are enlightened forms of anthropocentrism. Henning argues that contemporary cosmology and evolutionary biology leave no room for anthropocentrism. “Humans are a part of the natural world, not apart from it. Given this, it is not clear that it makes sense to claim that humans are responsible for, much less in charge of the planet” (129). Humans need “self-stewardship” (“self-control” or “self-discipline” seem better terms to me) so that we can become responsible citizens of the wider biotic community (130).

Henning draws on Aldo Leopold's “Land Ethic” in developing a more capacious and adequate environmental ethic. Leopold enlarged the boundaries of community to include soils, waters, animals—collectively, the land. Henning embraces Leopold's fundamental moral principle: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (quoted on 133). The great work demands that humanity become an integral and benign member of the biotic community (134). To further flesh out a positive, alternative vision for what Berry calls the “Ecozoic Era,” Henning develops the concept of “Voluntary Simplicity,” a lifestyle that is more fulfilling and more meaningful than a consumer culture, and that might avoid climate disruption. In an appendix, Henning presents the helpful case study “Eating Animals on a Warming Planet.”

Henning presents an environmental ethic, in an undergraduate-friendly format, that is consistent with Christian ethics.