Skip to main content

The Evangelical Climate Change Initiative

From the New York Times:
Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."

Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life."

"For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."
The group will hold a press conference this morning at the National Press Club here in Washington. More later, if warranted.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Religion should keep out of politics and science, and vice versa. While their motivces may be honorable in reminding us that we are 'stewards of God's creation', it is inappropriate for churches, synogogues, mosques, temples, or other places of worship to make statements endorsing or opposing a purely secular issue.
Matthew66 said…
I disagree. I believe that in a democratic society that places great importance on free speech, any group within that society is entitle to voice its opinion on any matter whatsoever. The rest of us are free to criticize their opinions or disregard them if we wish. Similarly, if I feel so inclined, I can criticize the teachings of these same evangelical groups, and they are perfectly free to refute or ignore my criticisms. The right to free speech belongs to to all within a free society, not a select group.
Anonymous said…
Matthew,

Perhaps you are correct, but we are NOT, NOR should we ever be a democratic society. Democracy is what killed Socrates and is nothing more than three wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Rather, we are a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the minority are respected. Nothing is as much a minority as the individual.

I get very nervous when religion gets involved in politics, even when a religious organization may be 'pro-nuclear', because historically religion has been opposed to the rights of the individual, and generally makes the individual subservient to the theological collective, the worst examples being right wing Christian fundamentalists and Mid-East Islamic fascists (though there are more examples). I would think that religious organizations should focus on 'things of the spirit' rather than secular issues.
Matthew66 said…
Notwithstanding your views on the virtues (or lack therof) of democracies, free speech is a right enshrined in the US Constitution, which also establishes the separation of church and state. I empathize with your concerns about the influence of some religious organizations in the body politic, however, I still hold that where the US constitution grants the right of freedom of speech, that right belongs to all US Citizens, even those speaking on behalf of a religious institution.

Your point about the US being a Constitutional Republic is noted. My concern is that without democracy, an elite can decide what is the best for all of us. I am not sure that is any better than democracy. All "men" are equal, but some are more equal than others?

I would also observe that the way that most electoral districts in the US are gerrymandered effectively circumvents any propsect of democracy in US House of Representatives elections, and most state assemblies (particularly in the state of New York where I live). I find it very odd that people talk about Congresspeople being concerned about their seats, there are only about 40 seats in the House of Representatives that have any prospect of changing hands at the mid-term elections. Presidential elections are a little better (although I think the electoral college is unnecessary given that direct election is now technologically possible), and I suppose the Federal Senate elections are better still. I haven't really looked at the state Senates.
Anonymous said…
Matthew,

I agree with your explanation except for the following statement:

"My concern is that without democracy, an elite can decide what is the best for all of us."

This sentence should be changed to read as follows:

"My concern is that without individual liberty, an elite can decide what is the best for all of us."

Individual liberty is what matters, NOT democracy which is merely tyranny by the majority (and that is just as wrong as an elite deciding on what's best for all of us). In fact, all true morality is descended from two primary principles:

(1) The individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

(2) The non-initiation of force.

I would amend these 'Libertarian / Objectivist' principles, however, with what Robert Heinlein wrote (a third principle as it were):

(3) "All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a 'perfect society'on any foundation other than 'Women and children first!' is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying."

Thus, I support nuclear power because of its relationship to these three principles.

For principle (2), nuclear power does not emit pollution to the environment which is in its truest sense is an initiation of force against others, in the case, particulates and green house gases into the atmosphere.

For principle (3), nuclear power provides low cost electricity that saves human lives and raises the standard of living all over, particularly in third world countries, two million of whose women and children currently suffocate from the effects of biomass burning every year.

And most importantly, for principle (1), by providing a wealth of energy, nuclear power provides greater individual opportunity to succeed, make a profit and exercise his or her liberty to its fullest extent. Poverty constrains individual liberty every bit as much as a dictatorship.

In conclusion, I think that religion is to be used for individual spirituality, whether one is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Taoist or Pantheist. Religious people have every right to take a stand pro- or con- on such issues as global climate change, but from a religious perspective, the issue is one of proper stewardship of the gift of creation that God (or one's 'Higher Power') has given us [though atheist Objectivists don't believe in any 'Higher Power' - I'm not nearly that radical - honest! :-) ]
Anonymous said…
Book of Revelations Chpt. 8 vs. 10-11

"And the third angel trumpeted. And a Great Star fell upon the earth burning as it were a lamp and the name of the star is "wormwood." And a third of the waters, rivers and fountains were made bitter. And many men died because the waters were made bitter."

Guess what the Ukrainian word for "wormwood" is?

Paul, NIRS

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin