Global Warming and Evangelicals

Leading clergymen and women warned of the dangers of global warming at a congressional hearing on June 7th. “Number one, human-induced climate change is real,” the Reverend Jim Ball, president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network, told the U. S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Secondly, the consequences of climate change will be significant, and will hit the poor the hardest.”

“Three, Christian moral convictions demand our response to the climate change problem, and fourthly, the need to act now is urgent.” Other witnesses disputed not only the extent of the problem, but the support for extensive regulations to solve it in either the scientific or religious community.

“And although up to 2,500 of the world’s top scientists agree with the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] assertions about man-caused global warming, well over 10,000 scientists still do not,” author and historian David Barton commented. “And similarly, while more than 100 religious leaders signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative on Global Warming, some 1,500 religious leaders signed onto the Cornwall Declaration that reached quite different conclusions.”

The IPCC was created by the United Nations. Research gathered from the International Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 summary for policymakers accounted for much of the majority’s argument that there exists “if not a clear and present danger then a clear and future one,” as the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s booklet, Global Climate Change: a plea for dialogue prudence and the common good, puts it.

Although very little scientific data was presented in the argument, a shortfall John Carr of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledged in his testimony. “The bishops accept the growing consensus on climate change represented by the International Panel on Climate Change, but also recognize continuing debate and some uncertainties about the speed and severity of climate change,” said Carr.

For his part, Barton reminded committee members of how past fears of future shock have played out:

1 In the 1920s, newspapers warned of a fast approaching Glacial Age, but in the 1930s, scientists reversed themselves and predicted serious global warming.

2 In 1972, Time reported scientific accounts that warned of imminent “runaway glaciation,” and in 1975, Newsweek reported the oncoming of an Ice Age, and some scientists proposed melting the arctic ice cap to forestall its coming.

3 Two decades later, the warning of the imminent Ice Age has been replaced by the warning of an impending Global Warming disaster.

“Evangelicals and people of conservative religious faith tend to be comfortable with theological teachings that have endured millennia, but not with science that often reverses its claims on the same issue,” Barton noted. In addition, Barton presented a study from the Canadian Financial Post that spoke to the consensus of scientists actively involved in the climate change program: “53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe [man-made] global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure, and 17% believed [man-made] global warming had begun.”

Jim Ball introduced a study to show the specific evangelical interest in the climate change debate, utilizing research from a 2005 poll by Ellison Research, claiming:

1 70% believe that global warming will pose a serious threat to future generations;

2 63% believe that although global warming may be a long-term problem, it is being caused today and therefore we must start addressing it immediately;

3 51% said that steps should be taken to reduce global warming, even if there is a high economic cost to the U.S.

Ball did recognize the misrepresentation of age groups of evangelical believers in this study, as younger evangelicals were much more likely to participate in global warming debate: 59% of 18-to-30 year olds as opposed to 37% of older believers. There was no such age difference impact on other issues presented in the study.

In contrast, Barton relayed the results of a 2004 Barna poll that outlined the glaring results of Christian accord on issues with a more obvious religious element. “In fact, among Evangelicals, 99.5% support the public displays of the Ten Commandments; 99% support keeping the phrase ‘In God We Trust’ on the nation’s currency; 96% support keeping ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance,” Barton told the committee.

Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary provided arguments for the lack of resolve of evangelicals in the climate change arena, beginning with a common skepticism of those who argue against Christian values in other areas. The use of Biblical authority in this area, Moore explained, is particularly harmful and misleading. “Evangelical Christians will not be convinced to support a public policy proposal on the basis of citations of the Garden of Eden and the Ark of Noah by churches that long ago relegated the narrative of Genesis to myth and saga,” he said.

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, referenced the National Academies [of Science] report in providing a mandate for Christian initiative in global warming: “Nations with wealth have a better chance of using science and technology to anticipate, mitigate, and adapt to sea-level rise, threats to agriculture, and other climate impacts…The developed world will need to assist the developing nations to build their capacity to meet the challenges of adapting to climate change.”

Dr. Moore argued that though we recognize our role as caretakers and stewards of creation, “the global warming debate is not simply between those who argue for such stewardship and those who argue against it.” “The problem with this engagement comes (…) with the tying of this mandate to specific policy proposals – with ramifications that are not yet fully known,” he explained.

Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla., in his opening statement, referred to an MIT study that showed that “the costs to energy consumers of instituting the Sanders-Boxer bill would be an amount equal to $4,500 per family and more than $3,500 for the Lieberman-McCain bill.” Sen. Inhofe, the ranking minority member of the committee, chaired it when the Republicans controlled Congress.

At the outset of the hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who now chairs the committee, presented Senator James Inhofe (OK) with a plush polar bear. Sen. Inhofe pointed out that the polar bears, whose extinction environmentalists recently warned of, are no longer in danger of disappearing.
Neither is the effort to impose regulations on the basis of real or perceived global warming.

Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.