The Environment as a Religious Issue

[msnicolea]

Now this is the kind of "evangelicism" I can get with!

Evangelicals urge action on global warming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of 85 evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday backed legislation opposed by the White House to cut carbon dioxide emissions, kicking off a campaign to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming.

The group which included mega-church pastors, Christian college presidents, religious broadcasters and writers, also unveiled a full-page advertisement to run in Thursday's New York Times and a television ad it hopes to screen nationally.

"With God's help, we can stop global warming for our kids, our world and our Lord," the television spot declared.

The campaign by evangelicals coincided with a call on Wednesday by a leading U.S. think tank for the United States to take immediate steps to fight global warming, including working with other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Pew Center for Global Climate Change said in a report that America has waited too long to seriously tackle the climate change problem and spelled out 15 steps the United States could take to reduce emissions it spews as the world's biggest energy consumer and producer of greenhouse gases.

"This transition will not be easy, but it is crucial to begin now," the Pew Center said. "Further delay will only make the challenge before us more daunting and more costly."

The campaign by the evangelical leaders represented a possible split in
President George W. Bush's political base, in which Christian evangelical voters are heavily represented.

However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."

TRADING SYSTEM

Specifically, and mirroring a proposal by the Pew Foundation, the leaders called on Congress to pass laws to create a trading system that would spur companies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists say is a major cause of global warming.

One such bill, The Climate Stewardship Act, first introduced in 2003 by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), would require that U.S. emissions return to their 2000 levels by 2010.

The United States, with around 5 percent of the world's population, accounts for a quarter of its greenhouse gases and U.S. emissions rose by 2 percentage points in 2004 alone, according to government figures.

The McCain-Lieberman bill has failed to win passage twice in the Senate, although a majority there did adopt a non-binding resolution to cap emissions. The issue has not come up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

The Bush administration opposes imposing mandatory limits and backs voluntary efforts by companies. It has also refused to join the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord signed by the European Union, Japan and most other industrialized nations that sets hard targets for cutting emissions.

The Christian leaders said they were impelled by their faith to launch the campaign out of a growing realization that the threat of global warming was real and that the world's poor would suffer the most.

Paul de Vries, president of New York Divinity School, said: "However we treat the world, that's how we are treating Jesus because He is the cosmic glue."

The leaders said a poll they commissioned of 1,000 evangelical Protestants showed that two thirds were convinced global warming was taking place. Additionally, 63 percent said the United States must start to address the issue immediately and half said it must act even if there was a high economic cost.

The Pew Foundation also recommended boosting renewable fuel output and providing financial incentives to farmers to spur absorption of greenhouse gas emissions on farm lands.

U.S. government weather forecasters reported on Tuesday that the nation's January temperatures were the warmest on record, beating the average for the month by 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit (4.7 degrees C). Two weeks ago
NASA scientists confirmed that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide.

[wendalah]

I heard this story on the radio this morning--nothing to add, but I thought it was very interesting.

[IrisHope]

Now, why would Bushy be against this??

[MLA]

Well, that's refreshing. Of course "shrub" won't listen because despite the power the evangelical christians hold in the Republican party, big oil is more powerful (read $$$).

[artist]

Actually, it doesn't surprise me. (Only because I know a conservative/religious Republican who claims to be an environmentalist. Although, it seems to me she still thought we should drill for oil in Alaska.)

[thedoorchick]

Interesting...I was reading about this earlier today.

I am extremely torn on the whole drilling in Alaska issue, but that's another thread.

[artist]

Interesting...I was reading about this earlier today.

I am extremely torn on the whole drilling in Alaska issue, but that's another thread.

So, are you a Republican who is religious and would like more done for the environment? (Just curious as you mentioned being "torn" on the Alaska thing.)

[looch]

I am not by any means an environmentalist, but I support drilling for oil in alaska in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, even if it is for a short period of time. I understand that there is not enough oil there to even compare to the opec nations but, nonetheless, i think it is the right thing to do. I feel the need to disclaim this by saying I don't even own a car, i ride my bike to work (or walk) and take mass transit when visiting my parents in another state.
I am also a religious republican, and if that makes my opinion unwelcome, well, I will stick to the fashion and beauty and cooking threads!;)

[lawyerlee]

Awesome. I hope this is an issue where party lines can be bridged in an effort to work together for the greater good. :)

[thedoorchick]

artist, to be completely honest, I know less about environmental issues than I do about many others. My first instinct is to answer your question "yes", but obviously it's a broad question.

looch has pretty well explained my dilemma...while I completely see the perils of drilling in Alaska and in theory agree with that viewpoint, I strongly feel that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Therein lies my struggle...

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I can understand the desire to reduce the dependence on foreign oil- I'm fully behind that!- but I personally think that drilling in Alaska should be a truly last resort scenario. As in, we need it for the war effort type of last resort. It's like a retirement account. You don't touch what you have in there until you have exhausted all other options, and I don't think we have. I think we really ought to be doing everything possible to develop renewable resources and to cut consumption before we go that route.

[Belm]

The Grist magazine (http://www.grist.org/) (environmental news) has been reporting on this issue for a while now. Here are some more articles for those that are intersted -

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/10/05/cizik/index.html

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/03/10/5/index.html


http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/02/07/3/index.html

[msnicolea]

Great links, Belm--thank you! I'm off to read them now.

[PG-rated]

I am not by any means an environmentalist, but I support drilling for oil in alaska in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, even if it is for a short period of time. I understand that there is not enough oil there to even compare to the opec nations but, nonetheless, i think it is the right thing to do.
I think it's important to point out that not as much of our oil comes from the Middle East as people think. Of our top ten suppliers, only Saudia Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait are in the region (and Iraq doesn't really count, IMHO). Less than a quarter of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf. See this chart from the Department of Energy (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm) for more info.
Unfortunately, we still wouldn't be able to make any real difference with Alaskan oil reserves (based on projections), so I personally don't support drilling due to the environmental costs.

[Scooter]

Now, why would Bushy be against this??

I think this puts Bush in a really awkward position. If he begins to see the environmental issue the way these Christian leaders do, he's in a bind. Does he continue as he has been, supporting big oil & hurting the environment, or does he announce he's changed his mind and wants to protect God'a Earth? (or however they would phrase it.) Since we know how opposed he is to "flip flopping" and in general changing his mind, even when new information comes out, it wouldn't seem like him to support this position.


I always wondered why more evangelical Christians weren't strong environmentalists. Right in the beginning of Genesis, when God creates Adam, he is told to dress & keep paradise, which sounds like he's saying take care of it. I don't know, maybe some of fundamental Christians have a different interpretation of that. :confused:

[msnicolea]

Hopefully, God will speak to Bush again and tell him what to do.

[pocket]

i am pleased to see global warming recognized as an issue that affects all of us. it's absolutely an issue that should concern all people of faith. if you believe that a divine being made the world to sustain us, we should honor that gift.

[looch]

PG_rated said
I think it's important to point out that not as much of our oil comes from the Middle East as people think. Of our top ten suppliers, only Saudia Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait are in the region (and Iraq doesn't really count, IMHO). Less than a quarter of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf.

Opec nations aren't limited to the middle east. As far as I know the opec nations are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Why doesn't Iraq count? In what respect?

[Delta]

I don't think Bush is as much anti-environmentalist as he is a believer in letting the market work (Free Market Environmentalism.) Many environmentalists want the government to do something NOW about EVERYTHING and he (and those who believe in FME) are hesitant. They are also skeptical about global warming, or at least the extent of the human cause of it.

The administration is hesitant to place restraints or mandates on the private sector in order to change behavior. To some extent I agree, but I think it goes to far. For example, I don't think we need new CAFE standards, because I think the market is working well at bringing them down, albeit in a slower, but safer, manner than a government restriction would. I think the price of oil is driving the demand for hybrid vehicles more than a government mandate would. However, I do think that in order to really cut down on say...emissions from coal plants, you do need stricter governmental policies or investments in technology. There just isn't enough market incentive for the companies to do that themselves.

As for drilling in Alaska, I guess I'm for it. The footprint should be quite small, and I think we do everything we can to wean ourselves from foreign oil.

I do wonder what the group has to say about nuclear energy. It's the cleanest but many environmental groups are dead set against it.

Also, I do know that Bush has purchased an ethanol vehicle for his ranch, FWIW. I think he's willing to put his money where his mouth is wrt ethanol.

[Scooter]

I do wonder what the group has to say about nuclear energy. It's the cleanest but many environmental groups are dead set against it.
What do you mean, nuclear energy is the cleanest? As compared to what other energy sources?

I can think of at least 3 others that are cleaner & in current use in various areas of the country. :confused:

[Delta]

I suppose I was comparing it to fossil fuels - in terms of generating power on a very large scale. Solar, wind, etc I guess are technically cleaner, but neither can generate the amount of energy needed to power say, an entire country. They are good compliments to other, more powerful sources (like nuclear.)

[PG-rated]

Opec nations aren't limited to the middle east. As far as I know the opec nations are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Why doesn't Iraq count? In what respect?
I know that, but when people say "reduce our dependence on foreign oil," it's usually code for "reduce the amount of oil we import from the Middle East." I don't really think it threatens our national security to import oil from Canada and Mexico. As for reducing the oil we import from OPEC countries, well, good luck with that. Domestic supplies are nothing more than a drop in the bucket (heh). The only real solution is to reduce oil consumption.

I said Iraq didn't count because it's currently under U.S. occupation. Even though we may not be controlling the oil flow, we certainly have a lot of influence on it.

[looch]

PG Rated said
The only real solution is to reduce oil consumption.


ITA with this.

I personally have a huge issue with people saying that we have to reduce dependency on foreign oil and then drive a gas-guzzler.

[MLA]

I always wondered why more evangelical Christians weren't strong environmentalists. Right in the beginning of Genesis, when God creates Adam, he is told to dress & keep paradise, which sounds like he's saying take care of it. I don't know, maybe some of fundamental Christians have a different interpretation of that. :confused:

To answer your question . . . I've heard and read that some fanatical right-wing fundamentalist Christians believe that global warming doesn't matter because they're sure that the Apocolypse is soon to come, that the reason they support Israel is not because they want to help the Jews but because the formation of Israel is actually a fulfillment of biblical prophesy that is one of the steps in the course towards the end of the world. Now, I doubt that your average evangelical thinks this way, but there's definitely a small, radical segment that does. It all seems so ridiculously conspiratorial to me, but that's what I've heard.

[PG-rated]

MLA, I've heard that, too.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

I personally have a huge issue with people saying that we have to reduce dependency on foreign oil and then drive a gas-guzzler.But that is not the only reason we have a huge oil consumption. I drive a "gas-guzzler" but I drive fewer miles than most people. My daily drive is 20 miles round-trip, which is approximately 1 gallon of gas. What about the person who decides to buy a house in the boonies, 80 miles from where they work (an hour and a half commute), so they have a 160 mile round trip. Even if they're driving a Prius (getting the 40mpg average being reported, as the sticker isn't telling the whole truth) and having no traffic congestion, they're still consuming more oil. Only they're getting a pat on the back, while people continue to b*tch about my "gas-guzzler" of an SUV. Yet, I used to drive a small 4 cylinder pick up that got the same 20 mpg, and no one dared to say a word about gas consumption because they thought "small car that lacks power, must get pretty good mileage."

So yes, I am a huge villian for wanting to reduce foreign oil consumption yet driving an SUV. I carpool and I recycle pretty much everything, but I'm such a horrible person.

[looch]

I never said you were a horrible person SWF, and I am sure that you are not implying that I said that.

Yes, you bring up a good point, and I agree with portions of what you are saying. I don't have any evidence to support it, but if I had to guess, I would say that most people behave less like you and more like the scenario you posted. And that is what I have an issue with.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

looch, I know you never said I was a horrible person :) But most times the gas-guzzler issue gets whipped out, people with SUVs take the brunt of the storm ;) I guess I get a tad bit defensive before I end up getting stuck on the offensive :D

I'm just a fan that if something is legal, let them make what choice suits them, especially in this respect. Want to reduce consumption, incentive people to drive less. Stop funding a useless war, and put the money towards research and development ;) Make it so that people can get a powerful car with a lower fuel consumption, that doesn't look wimpy. I'd have no problem if my car is a hybrid or hydrogen car--if it is large enough for my needs, powerful enough for my needs, doesn't look so wimpy/ugly, and isn't going to cost me a nutso premium compared to the nonhybrid version (GM is spot on with their VUE this year in this respect).

I know I probably don't have the popular opinion here, but if we're relying on any foreign oil.... well, just reducing our consumption isn't enough. We really need to eliminate the need. So, whether you're driving a H2 or an Insight, you're contributing to the issue.

I guess we really just need incentive! I recycle all of my papers, and place them in the paper bags my groceries come in... because it reduces the amount of my trash greatly. We tote out 2 huge bins of plastics/glass every single week, to the point I don't have to have full trashbags outside of the garbage can for the wildlife to rifle through. Heck, it's been a looooong time since I had to buy trashbags :)

I hate to sound a little dumb, but we need to stop the idea of being a wasteful society with the "WalMart mentality." We can pay super cheap prices for an item that breaks a year later, where we will go out and replace said cheap item with another. Instead of paying more up front for a quality item that will last 10 times as long, or repairing such an item (the more expensive the item, the more we're likely not to just toss it when having a minor issue), we're filling up landfills and taking up more resources to replace said items. Sad, really.

[Scooter]

To answer your question . . . .Thanks for that, it helped me see that point of view. It makes no sense to me, but at least if people are going to think these things they have some reasoning behind it.

Although, with the number of times in history people believed the signs were all lining up and the Apocalypse was upon us, it might be nice for them to come up with a backup plan. ;)

[Scooter]

Want to reduce consumption, incentive people to drive less. Stop funding a useless war, and put the money towards research and development ;) Make it so that people can get a powerful car with a lower fuel consumption, that doesn't look wimpy. What about putting money into some alternatives so we don't HAVE to drive as much? My DH & I live within 30 miles of our jobs (as close as we could get & still afford housing) but that is over 2 hours in the car per day. Per person. Why? Because there are no public transportation options that run between here & there. People have been asking for the public system to be extended to the city we work in my entire life, and they still haven't done it. I can't tell you how many hundreds of people it would get off the freeway, SUV & hybrid drivers alike!

And you're totally right, it's not just the car issue, there's also the general waste. For example how many products now advertise that they're disposable? Bathroom sponge cleaners, Swiffers, Glad tupperware--there are tons of these single use items out there that really are contributing to the problem.

And it's amazing how many products we can't live without are actually made from oil--various plastics and things that are so indispensable to us. Americans don't know how to function without relying on oil.

[looch]

Scooter,
you make an excellent point in that we have to think about other products that are made from oil and by-products.