News Putting Down Roots Top Stories

‘Connecting the dots’ between faith and climate change

Protesters block an entrance to the Moscone Center where the Global Action Climate Summit was taking place Sept. 13, 2018, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

LOS ANGELES (RNS) —Tackling issues like climate change or protecting the environment often requires a lot of boring, behind-the-scenes work, far from the spotlight.

But sometimes you have to let your light shine, said the Rev. Susan Hendershot Guy, president of Interfaith Power & Light.

For California faith communities, that means taking a public role in the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco this week (Sept. 12-14), offering an interfaith service and faith-based workshops among other events.

The Rev. Susan Hendershot Guy. Photo courtesy of Interfaith Power and Light

The three-day summit, co-chaired by Gov. Jerry Brown and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has drawn international and local government, business, science and nonprofit leaders. Hendershot Guy said it is important for the faith community to show up as well.

“Every major faith tradition calls us to care for the Earth,” she said. “And every major faith tradition calls us to care for our neighbors and those who are most vulnerable. And climate change impacts both of those.”

The summit has been a chance for these congregations to raise the profile of their faith efforts. At the multifaith service, at the Episcopal Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, the Dalai Lama is expected to speak via video, and Christiana Figueres, who served as executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, will speak in person.

“There are a lot of people beginning to connect the dots between faith, the environment, climate change,” said the Rev. Ambrose Carroll, co-founder of Green the Church, a campaign to motivate environmental action in the African-American church community.

For many congregations, the environmental focus is nothing new. Many local houses of worship have community gardens or encourage members to write letters to the editor of their local newspaper. An Interfaith Power & Light program called Cool Congregations helps congregations reduce their carbon footprint while saving money.

Some faith leaders have taken time to call or meet with local policy makers — an important step, said Hendershot Guy. “We can all change a light bulb,” she said. “But at the end of the day we need the right policies in place in order to get where we need to go as quickly as we need to get there.”

Recently a number of faith-based organizations backed a new California law, signed by Brown this week, that requires the state to get all its power from renewable sources by 2045.

Attendees hold signs and banners during the Rise L.A. for Climate, Jobs and Justice Rally in the University Park neighborhood of Los Angeles on Sept. 8, 2018. RNS photo by Heather Adams

Bishop Marc Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California said his denomination has been working on corporate and individual action. The Episcopal Church remains committed to the Paris climate accord, even though President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement. The denomination has also passed a number of resolutions focused on creation care.

The resolutions include encouraging churches to serve and promote locally grown food, promoting energy and water efficiency and advocating for ocean health through public policy advocacy.

Keeping those resolutions, Andrus said, is easier said than done, which is why the church is helping create an app to assist people with keeping their commitments.

The app, Sustaining Earth, Our Island Home, will help people make five changes in their life and then tracks their progress. The app is expected to go live in January.

Bishop Marc Andrus. Photo courtesy of Episcopal Church

Kristin Barker, co-founder of One Earth Sangha, which brings practices from the Buddhist tradition to ecological issues, said it’s important to personally commit to the Paris agreement and not wait for the government to enforce regulations.

But she also acknowledges the difficulties of living a sustainable life and wants others to feel they can acknowledge it too.

“This is hard. It takes me longer to get to work when I have to take a bus. Or, I really miss eating hamburgers,” she said.

Andrus said many faith-based groups are working on sustainability and environmental justice is very large. But they seem to be flying under the radar.

“Many of them don’t know about each other,” Andrus said. “And the larger body of the church and the general public don’t know about them either.”

Both Andrus and Hendershot Guy are working to organize and support these communities through interfaith events at the summit.

“It’s one planet and it’s one people,” Andrus said. “We inspire each other, we learn from each other.”

Lately some faith groups in California have found themselves at odds when it comes to environmental issues.

A local environmental coalition called STAND-LA — which includes faith-based groups — is working to shut down the the Murphy oil drilling site in Los Angeles, arguing that its wells pose a danger to the community. It is one of two such sites located on property owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

“We stand with the archdiocese when it comes to immigration reform. We stand with the archdiocese on several other social issues,” said the Rev. Kelvin Sauls, faith community organizer for STAND-LA. “On some we disagree.”

The Rev. Kelvin Sauls speaks at the Rise L.A. for Climate, Jobs and Justice Rally in the University Park neighborhood of Los Angeles on Sept. 8, 2018. RNS photo by Heather Adams

The land was donated to the archdiocese in the 1950s by descendants of Edward L. Doheny, one of Los Angeles’ early oil barons, according to the Los Angeles Times. AllenCo Energy bought the oil production facility on the site in 2009.

AllenCo voluntarily suspended oil production in 2013 after public opposition. An investigation led to more than $99,000 in fines, according to the Times.

The site has remained closed. But AllenCo officials have discussed reopening it.

STAND-LA and other south LA residents want the diocese to help shut the site down permanently. Last year, Sauls sent a letter to Archbishop José H. Gomez asking for a meeting. The letter cited Pope Francis’ encyclical on ecology.

“We also see it as a tremendous opportunity to transition to a more sustainable economy that will create jobs for local residents, income for local institutions, and ensure a healthy community for our children and future generations,” the letter read. “We believe the Los Angeles Archdiocese can play a transformational and catalytic role in this transition.”

Gabriela Garcia, who lives near the AllenCo drilling site, has been part of grassroots efforts for several years. She said the efforts came together when neighbors started asking one another about strange odors and whether their children were also getting nosebleeds.

She also spoke during a rally at the Murphy site on Saturday (Sept. 8). Acknowledging that the issue is complex, Garcia said nonetheless that the archdiocese has a responsibility to shut down the site.

“We know that that would be the best outcome for our community and for the health of our community,” Garcia said.

In an email statement, the archdiocese told Religion News Service that it “does not have the right to shut down the site.”

“That said we are working with the City and AllenCo to find an alternative use for the site that is in the best interest of the community, royalty holders and all other stake-holders,” the statement continued.

The rally also promoted legislation for a 2,500-foot buffer between extraction sites and homes, said Niki Wong, director of policy and organizing at Redeemer Community Partnership, a local faith group.

Wong knows these rallies can make a difference.

In August, the faith-based group learned the owners of a drill site on Jefferson Boulevard would be shutting that facility down in the face of neighborhood opposition.

Now the nonprofit is working to make sure the closure and cleanup are done in a timely manner and that it isn’t left as an “orphan well,” abandoned by the company.

Then, she said, it’ll be up to the community to decide what to do with the land next. She’s heard people talking about a skate park, library or park.

“Right now this site is awful. It’s a facility that repels people from their homes,” Wong said. “It’d be so beautiful to see it transform into a park that gathers people together.”

About the author

Heather Adams

131 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Another example of “churches” acting as political action committees instead of teaching the faith. It’s no wonder people are leaving organized religion as the “organizers” are more interested in politics than God.

  • China Is Detaining Muslims in Vast Numbers. The Goal: ‘Transformation.’
    –NY Times

    China: Massive Crackdown in Muslim Region. Mass Arbitrary Detention, Religious Repression, Surveillance in Xinjiang
    –Human Rights Watch

    China holds one million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps
    –Aljazeera

    And climate change is your top religion news story? OK, it is a story, and climate change is important, but as a “religion” story, but how can this article compete with the world’s immediate and massive human rights disaster based on religious repression? What are the RNS editors thinking?

  • It must be difficult to claim to love the god who created the earth and all the life on it, yet cheer on its destruction for greater profit. Then again, for many”conservative Christians” it seems to be no trick at all.

  • The effects of climate change will harm far more people than those detained, wrongfully, by the Chinese regime.

    In any case, there’s no reason one can’t equally decry both. With China’s repression, one can take indirect action with protests and contacting elected reps.

    With climate change, one can take similar indirect action AND direct, personal steps, such as take public transportation, walk, or bike, choose more energy efficient appliances, etc.

  • Correction . . .

    “Another example of “churches” acting as political action committees instead of teaching the faith [fantasy]. It’s no wonder people are leaving organized religion as the “organizers” are more interested in politics [and rational thinking] than God [GOD (the Grand Old Delusion)].”

  • Correction . . .

    “Another example of substituting the platform of the Green Party for the Nicene Creed.”

  • Let me guess. The metro bus that Kristin Barker whines about having to take, (the bus that low-income and fixed-income people have no choice but to ride for their daily needs), magically runs on solar power or wind power, not the good ole FOSSIL FUELS that these global warmers want to shut down. Right?

  • “…there’s no reason one can’t equally decry both”

    OK, then let’s have equal coverage. How many stories have we heard about climate change and how many about the massive repression of Islam in China? And which has a more direct religion angle? This is supposed to be a religion news site.

  • Interesting take.

    When churches try to exert political influence, provide money and manpower lobbying to attack civil liberties of various citizens, they get your approval and are not considered “political action committees” by you*

    *My attitude is that any organization which contributes manpower and money to political causes should be taxed. The Johnson Amendment serves a purpose to keep churches from cheapening their authority in such partisan political actions.

  • BTW many city buses are going towards natural gas and electric.
    https://www.greenbiz.com/article/city-buses-are-about-swiftly-electrify

    Scientific research and establish facts are not your sort of thing. You are still railing about the basis for all biological research interpretation which has been established nearly a century and a half. In favor of mythology no less.

    Solar and wind brings more jobs than coal does.
    https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/05/17/more-u-s-jobs-in-solar-than-coal-and-nuclear-combined/

    Coal releases more radioactivity in the air than nuclear power.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

  • Typical deflecting bullshifting from you.

    Are they churches? If not, then they are not relevant to any point I just made here.

  • Neither the story nor this comment provides any evidence that many conservatives Christians are cheering on the destruction of the earth. To frame the discussion this way is simple bigotry.

  • *My attitude is that any organization which contributes manpower and money to political causes should be taxed.”

    Didn’t just say “any organization?”

    Why should organizations or churches be taxed for trying to save the environment?

  • If they are giving money and manpower towards political campaigns they should be. They are being a PAC. Just like the evangelicals who commit resources to attacking civil liberties and supporting conservative politicians.
    For example the LDS should have lost its tax exempt status for its efforts in Prop 8 in California.

    If they are doing something less overtly political like funding cleanup efforts, environmental protection lawyers, and engaging in general protests then it’s a different story.

  • They keep voting for the GOP, whose platform calls for opening critical habitat to mining and drilling. The burning of fossil fuels is demonstrated to be the driver of climate change.

    No bigotry at all. Simply observation.

  • Do you consider the Sierra Club “just a PAC” because they donated money to candidates? How much do you think they should be taxed? The Sierra Club was one of the first large-scale environmental preservation organizations in the world and currently promotes sustainable energy, mitigating global warming, and opposing the coal industry. These are just the things that I thought you would believe are essential to saving this planet. Remind me again why it makes sense to tax non-profit organizations that are engaged in saving the planet?

  • If the climate is getting warmer, one would expect continual melting of ice sheets and glaciers, resulting in increased sea level rise. Looking at long term sea level data (120+ years), the rise has been constant, indicating no significant ice melting or increased ocean temperatures (water expands when heated).

    Another smelly red herring.

  • They are not a church. They do not get the tax benefits of one. So like I told Parker, they would not be relevant to the point being made. They ARE a political advocacy group among other things.

    I was making a comment about how the Johnson Amendment upholds the authority of a church by keeping it from becoming nothing more than a political activist group.

  • It’s always seemed to me that if you believe god created the earth, then you dishonor god by trashing his creation.

    Obviously, evangelicals have a very different view. They think that the relevant verse in the bible means they can treat his creation any way they wish, throwing garbage all over it.

    I guess I’ll never understand evangelical “reasoning”.

  • All you have to do to see that Thin is right is to read their comments about pollution, environmentalism, global climate change, and so on.

  • Ahh, so typical of you, Bob–denigrate and slander and misrepresent the views of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

  • Climate change is real and is caused by us humans. And fueling it and its long list of concomitants is human overpopulation. Feeding that overpopulation is the Vatican’s criminally absurd ban on contraception and abortion (ignored by vast majorities of Catholics but caved in to by weak-kneed politicians) and the rants of far right evangelical leaders. In 1975 the Republican Ford administration produced the important NSSM 200 report (you can Google to it) that recommended universal access to contraception and abortion, but was mysteriously classified and buried until 1989. We are headed toward an unsustainable 10 billion world population by 2050, and the blame falls on conservative religious leaders. This must be reversed. — Edd Doerr

  • Actually the Sierra Club Foundation is a 501 (c) 3, just like a church.

    The Sierra Club itself is currently a 501 (c) 4 not-for-profit advocacy group, which does get tax breaks.

    The Johnson Amendment could not stand a constitutional challenge, which is why it is basically moribund.

  • Climate change is real.

    Anyone who visits the abandoned pueblos in the American Southwest or the formerly green areas of north Africa which have become deserts can see that.

    What’s lacking, and both of these areas attest to it, is evidence that it is a result of “human overpopulation”.

    While as a decades-long anti-Catholic and card-carrying member of every nutjob organization in favor the imaginary “wall of separation of separation between church and state” you’d love to use this as a segue into an anti-Catholic rant, commencing with “the Vatican’s criminally absurd ban on contraception and abortion”, I am afraid that dog won’t hunt except among the similarly benighted.

  • one would expect continual melting of ice sheets and glaciers, resulting in increased sea level rise.
    Like this:
    Polar bears endangered by melting sea ice
    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/polar-bears-starve-melting-sea-ice-global-warming-study-beaufort-sea-environment/

    The Arctic Ocean becomes a navigable sea lane
    https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/lng-shippers-set-to-gain-as-arctic-sea-routes-open-up-1.766139

    Siberian permafrost melting
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-is-a-huge-crater-and-it-is-getting-bigger

  • “BTW many city buses are going towards natural gas and electric.”

    (1) Natural gas is a fossil fuel, remember? The G-W Cult is rabid to remove your fossil fuels.

    (2) Electric buses sound all cute, till you shell out big bucks to buy some. THEN you get frequent breakdowns, stalls, limited range, can’t take hilly roads, can’t take heat, can’t take cold, can’t take drivers braking. LA paid millions and now they’re scammed up the wazoo!!
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-electric-buses-20180520-story.html

    (3) Seneca, SC, said it was going to be the first US city to go all electric-bus. They picked a bus supplier who is supposed to be better than LA’s problem-filled supplier. GUESS WHAT? Hahahaha!!!
    http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=291326

  • So don’t trash God’s creation. And don’t sell your soul to Global Warmer Cultists who think Censorship is the best way to achieve Consensus. And don’t hop into nasty bed with GW Scam Zombies, like Los Angeles did.

    Sign up with people who know that FOSSIL FUELS enable the poor people (and even some not-poor people) to maintain a daily routine of earning money, receiving education, filling medical needs, and building a future.

  • If you care, please check out the Research — http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org —— http://www.thenuclearproctologist.org/

    I recently traveled to the Oregon Coast for vacation. Dane Wiggington (climate change) and Dana Durnford (Fukishima) have been screaming at us for the past several years.

    I now know first hand that their theories are correct. I saw ZERO song birds on the coast. And ZERO bugs except Yellow Jackets. The insect population is dead. There was ZERO sea life on the rocks and jetties at low tide. Please listen to these men.

  • Hi Friends,

    Not speaking so much of my own experience, my hope was to normalize how, in the interest of all of our future, we can encounter discomfort, inconvenience or loss of pleasant experience. And I guess I’m a little confused by the comment which seems to imply public transit isn’t an important part of the solution. But that’s probably just my confusion. 🙂

  • Yes sir, Edd Doerr knows the Global Warming score. These global warmers are getting tired of having to tip-toe around what they REALLY want to see happen. The GW Cult is tired of all these low-income, non-European babies pooping their little methane-gas outta their little Pampers. All them babies gotta get dead NOW!!

    After all, like Margaret Sanger (patron saint of Planned Parenthood) suggested, we gotta put the lawn-mower on all them “Human Weeds”, right?

    And don’t worry readers, it’s good for the (eugenics) Environment !!

  • Bob and Floyd seem proud of their ignorance and disdain for science and our constitutional heritage of church-state separation and religious liberty. Overpopulation is what fuels climate change, if only they would bother to get informed. And Bob seems unaware that vast majorities of Catholics disagree with the Vatican’s medieval misogyny and opposition to women’s health and rights of conscience on contraception and abortion. Bob also seems oblivious to Catholic Ireland’s May 25 2 to 1 referendum victory for abortion rights. And let me recommend the excellent journal Conscience, published by the Washington based organization Catholics for Choice., headed by Irish Catholic Jon O’Brien.

  • The United States does NOT have a “constitutional heritage of church-state separation”.

    Science does NOT support the conclusion that overpopulation fuels climate change.

    Edd apparently does NOT understand that if 95% of “Catholics” believe A, B, or C it changes the Catholic Church’s teachings – which are based on revelation – not a whit,

    “Catholics for Choice” is assuredly NOT a Catholic organization, having been disowned by all three North American episcopal conferences.

    It was formed in 1973 as Catholics for a Free Choice by Frances Kissling, an excommunicated former Catholic who ran an abortion clinic.

    Edd has been a garden variety anti-Catholic for six decades.

  • Well, I certainly don’t want any of it sound confusing. (And, umm, thanks for your reply Ms. Barker!)
    It’s just that, as I look each of the protest signs in this article’s photos, I’m really not seeing any recognition about how this Get-Rid-Of-Fossil-Fuels-Now emphasis could impact upon low-income, fixed-income people. (There’s other concerns with this global warming stuff, but this one is upfront.)

    Affordable public transit, people relying on affordable city buses to meet daily needs, honestly means FOSSIL FUELS. The more the better. The cheaper the better. And it will mean that, for quite a long time.

    Los Angeles, and other locations, offer a pretty good example of the fact that electric buses have a seriously long way to go before they can replace fossil-fuel buses. And food costs are tied to transportation costs, so if fossil-fuel prices for truckers go up, food costs go up too. Food for thought.

  • And let’s not forget La Raza, Planned Parenthood, and any number of other 501(c)3’s that openly endorsed Hillary Clinton.

  • I haven’t seen any comment “cheering on the destruction of the earth.” I have seen disagreements about policy.

  • You have failed to demonstration that their votes were cast because of the GOP’s environmental stance rather than in indifference to it or even in spite of it.

    William Jacobson put it this way:

    “Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and the people who hate them every bit as much as they hate Trump.”

    I see lots of hate on this site directed towards conservative Christians.

    As for the environment, if the US stopped all mining and drilling, that wouldn’t stop China, India, Russia, Africa, the Middle East, Canada, etc. from mining and drilling. It might crash our economy though. High latitude countries, such as Russia, may actually believe in the benefits from global warming.

  • People of faith who are concerned about climate change lost the pivotal election of 2016 to other people of faith who were much more concerned about 1) What if they make YOU bake a gay wedding cake? 2) What if they make YOU issue a gay wedding license? 3) What if a transgender person is in YOUR public restroom?

    Seriously. That is not an exaggeration. It really happened. The consequences of that regrettable political accident are completely unknown.

  • Interesting how the devotees of the Church of Global Warming, maintaining their rock ribbed belief despite the shabby machinations of scientists invested in proving men are responsible for normal climate fluctuations, hurl accusations at evangelicals as destroyers of the environment. And they manage to drag in sjw’s from mainline denominations to agree to their sacramental trickery.

  • Where the heck do you see evangelicals ‘trashing” creation? That’s a slanderous charge and I would like to see where evangelicals want to destroy the environment. If you mean they disagree with the extremist positions of left wing ideologues, then that equates to using your brain, not trashing the environment.

  • I guess American know how needs to look elsewhere to figure it out. Or simply poorly tested design – just version 1.0 {also a difference between battery operated and electric] But never fear, emission standards are going to be relaxed so all those poor people you worry about get to breathe in more of those nasty things you can’t even see – although sometimes hard to see through.

  • Not sure the polar bears can wait that long. But I am not sure you read the article in its entirety because it is clear that this will be man=made as well – sort of the final outcome of what is happening now in terms of climate change, why and its human footprint.

  • No, I read it in its entirety.

    What it demonstrates is that in the long-run man has no control over the weather, and that there is no “normal” temperature to which the earth returns.

    Climate change is part of the warp and woof of this planet.

  • It is only a government benefit to the extent of the excess of payments over the value of contributions over a working lifetime at the market rate of interest during the government’s holding period.

    That base portion is a return of monies paid.

  • Btw, fossils show that polar bears only came into being between 10,000 and 20,000 years ago, diverging from a population of brown bears that became isolated during a period of glaciation in the Pleistocene from the eastern part of Siberia, (from Kamchatka and the Kolym Peninsula).

    Like every species of flora and fauna, survival is not only not guaranteed, but in the long run is unlikely.

    Trying to make the earth a museum of fixed climate, flora, and fauna is a doomed project.

  • Poor Bob is totally out of syn c with reality. Ah, where to begin. The concept of church-state separation was imbedded in the Virginia constitution by Jefferson and Madison in the 1780s, then incorporated in the First Amendment and nearly all of the state constitutions. Bob is simply ignorant of history, though rather recent conservative justices like Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, etc have worked to move matters in his abhorrent direction.

    Scientists concur that climate change is real and that human overpopulation fuels it. With world population headed toward 10 billion by 2050, scientists concur that that is unsustainable.

    Official Catholic doctrine opposes contraception and abortion, but actual Catholics ignore those official teachings, as the world saw on May 25 when 2/3 of voters in Catholic Ireland came our in favor of freedom of conscience on abortion.

    As for Catholics for Choice, readers should check it out and make up their own minds, not simply accept Bob’s weird rants.

    Like a great many Catholics, I have long been critical of the hierarchy’s authoritarianism and misogyny, and my writings have been published in Catholic journals. What has Bob published other than unpleasant and hateful comments online?

  • Actually there is good evidence that overpopulation and the resulting pressures both social and environmental brought on the abandonment of the earliest pueblos. They are a living testament to what happens when a local climate changes dramatically, and the area is no longer able to support the population it has produced.

    You might read Adolph Bandoliers “The Delight Makers”. The Bandolier National Monument outside Los Alamos is named for him. The book is a work of fiction but offers a hint at what might have happened!

  • I think we have already passed the optimal carrying capacity (human population) for our planet. Floydlee and Bob are fools. I first started to study population issues in the early 1970s. Ehrlich’s book, can’t remember exact title, about population dynamics.

  • Poor Edd is watching his life’s work fold on itself as he nears the end.

    “The concept of church-state separation was imbedded in the Virginia constitution by Jefferson and Madison in the 1780s, then incorporated in the First Amendment and nearly all of the state constitutions.”

    Poor Edd is always bereft of actual Supreme Court cases because the Supreme Court believes the First Amendment means what it says – that Congress shall not establish religion, not that there is “a wall of separation between church and state”.

    “Scientists concur that climate change is real and that human overpopulation fuels it.”

    Science has ALWAYS believed the climate changes.

    That “human overpopulation fuels it”, and if it does, how is an ongoing debate.

    “With world population headed toward 10 billion by 2050, scientists concur that that is unsustainable.”

    Some scientists believe it is unsustainable. Their predictions over the last three hundred years have ALWAYS proved false.

    “Official Catholic doctrine opposes contraception and abortion, but actual Catholics ignore those official teachings …”.

    Medical science demonstrates that drinking to an excess and smoking tobacco are detrimental to health, but millions of people continue to do one or both.

    “As for Catholics for Choice, readers should check it out” and confirm it has NEVER been headed by or supported by practicing Catholics.

    “Like a great many Catholics, I have long been critical of the hierarchy’s authoritarianism and misogyny ….”.

    Like a great many ex-Catholics who became anti-Catholics, Edd has sustained a barrage of unsupported anti-Catholic propaganda.

    But when he writes “…. my writings have been published in Catholic journals …”, particulars are always totally missing.

    There is a reason why.

  • Actually the evidence is that the climate shifted from wet to dry, which decimated the agriculture that supported the pueblos.

    Since you live in the area you already know the current climate there is arid.

    Evidence of cannibalism in the pueblos themselves and other archeological evidence supports the conclusion that as the climate changed, the society collapsed with starvation and warfare.

    This is no shock.

    We know that England changed from a wine-drinking country to a beer and ale drinking country when the climate there cooled.

    We know that ice-bound Greenland was named “green land” because at the time it was named it had a moderate climate.

    Climate change is real. The current hullabaloo is largely fabricated.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/riddles-of-the-anasazi-85274508/

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2694812?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/groups/University%20Honors%20Program/Journals_two/21_forsman.pdf

    http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1734&context=usgsstaffpub

  • I think Susan hasn’t bothered to acquaint herself with the last three hundred years of dire Malthusian predictions, which leads her like Chicken Little to pronounce those who disagree with her half-baked pseudo-science “fools”.

  • By “trashing” I meant, not caring at all about pollution of the earth, and, indeed, believing that god allows people to do whatever they want to the environment, because of a certain biblical passage (which I cannot recall exactly at this time) about god somehow giving people “domain” over the earth, something like that.

    It’s clear that most evangelicals don’t care at all about what happens to our environment, are not concerned about businesses polluting the ground, water, and air.

    I am not a leftist ideologue, nor are any of my environmentalist friends. I’d say all of us are pragmatists–and at that, *selfish* pragmatists. We live in this environment, therefore we care about what happens to it–it’s not an ideological thing at all, it’s a *selfish* thing: we like to breathe clean air.

    But it’s interesting that you attribute that view to “leftist ideologues”. My observations have been that almost all of the folks who don’t care about the environment, are either right-wing ideologues, or take that position because they dislike the folks who advocate care of the earth, air, and water.

  • By “global warming cultists” I suppose you are referring to scientists?

    I don’t understand what your second para has to do with environmentalism or the idea that god created the earth.

    One guess: could it be that you think that folks who advocate for clean air, etc., somehow look down on you?

  • Malthus’s 1798 predictions did not anticipate all the developments of the 19th and 20th centuries, but contemporary science from Ehrlich on is spot on with regard to overpopulation’s adverse effects on our planet. Poor Bob needs to read the 1975 Ford admin’s NSSM 200 report.

  • Bob’s ignorance is so vast it is beyond belief. His judgementalism violates the “Judge not lest ye be judged rule.” If he wants to see my writing in Catholic journals he should look at the National Catholic Reporter and First Things, among others.

  • The National (un)Catholic Reporter is so Catholic it got booted out of its diocesan offices by its bishop.

    It is the medium of record for superannuated dissidents.

    Run this search

    “first things” “edd doerr”

    in Google and find multiple letters to the editor by him, but no articles.

    Those of us who live or lived in the Washington, DC, area are very familiar with Edd’s frequent letters to this or that editor.

  • For those with an interest in this sort of thing, you can read this 44-year-old *1974* report here:

    https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pcaab500.pdf

    In typical Malthusian fashion it predicted famine in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil such that it would undermine the socio-political and economic growth of these countries, which would be against the national interests of the United States since the “U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad”, and chaos in these countries would produce destabilizing opposition forces against the US.

    In typical imperialist White Man’s Burden terms it recommended a variety of Orwellian schemes to reduce fertility in these and other countries so the U.S. could cherry pick overseas resources at bargain prices.

    Basically none of its projections panned out.

    The major problem for the U.S. for minerals has turned out to be China and Russia, both of which control certain vital minerals and both of which bid against the U.S. for those they don’t control.

    Fortunately this hare-brained scheme went nowhere. It would have made us look like a group of Nazis.

    Here is a short recap of the main points:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

    Thanks for bringing it up, Edd.

    It illustrates the total intellectual bankruptcy of your side of the discussion.

  • I took a college class on global warming some years ago (based on Al Gore’s wonderful — but now refuted — movie “Inconvenient Truth”). One day, we watched a cute Cull-The-Herd video.

    But our teachers carefully skirted around this one Global Warming video, moving quickly. “I’m interested in the science, not really the social philosophy or debate”, said one of them.

    A lovely global-warming “overpopulation” video. Straight outta Malthus City. So the video showed helpful efforts to give non-white women better access to “reproductive choices & reproductive health” in India, Africa, China, etc. (After all, dead babies produce less CO2 !!)

    Insufficient solar and wind solutions? That’s okay, ’cause these Global Warmers got ANOTHER solution for you low-income people around here. http://www.breakpoint.org/2009/02/culling-the-herd/

  • You paid a premium into a policy, you likely get more than you paid if you have bad health or live a long time! It’s a form of government handout that you dispose in others.

  • And the air is not clean? And dominion means pollution? Or does it mean we are masters and stewards of the earth, neither destroying it nor making it into a totem and object of worship. Where is your evidence that evangelicals do not care about the environment? The last survey I saw, environmental comcerns were very low on almost all voters’ list of concerns. And it is the ideologues of the left, who use such agencies as the EPA to extend government regulation into every backyard puddle, that stir opposition to over regulation from citizens of all faiths or no faith at all.

  • OK.

    I don’t see why he thinks it’s part of a Christian response to insult folks by saying things like, “I suspect you receive government benefits in some way shape or form.” What does that have to do with this conversation? There is so much hate balled up in his arrogance that he is a true Christian and everyone different from him isn’t. I see nothing of the religion of Jesus, Christianity, in most everything that he posts here. Just a religion about Jesus, Christianism, instead.

  • You forget that the earth has been polluting the air since it was formed 4+B years ago.

    Have you ever been close enough to smell the pollution a volcano puts out?

  • You might visit the sites tabulating the global total fertility demographics.

    In a couple of generations, who will be doing the work & paying the taxes?

  • Man made climate change is a theory, and nothing else. So far, it has even failed the theory test-no warming in the last 18 years. To try and “connect the dots” to religion is a fools errand and sounds like so much made up garbage spewed forth in the middle ages-the earth is the center of the universe! The earth revolves around the sun! Man made climate change! How unsupported by facts does a theory have to be to be relegated to the dust heap of history?

  • You are right, I think, to ask for evidence supporting my statement that evangelicals do not care about the environment. I will look for some solid evidence, though I have a feeling you will not be satisfied with any data I find.

    My statement is based on statements I’ve read and heard from evangelicals in the past, oh, 20 years or more, in which most have ridiculed the idea that the earth and our environment should be cared for.

    As far as I’ve been able to determine, that view is based on 2 things: (1) that somehow god gave humans dominion over the earth (something like that–it’s based on a bible verse and I am not confident I’m quoting exactly), which means we can do whatever we want to the earth and envirnment; and (2) the fact that those who advocate for earth/environment, are somehow their ideological opponents–politically, religiously, etc.

    From what I know about human behavior, both are important factors in determining an individual’s views; #2, especially, is often overlooked.

    I am aware that in fact there are some evangelicals who believe we should care for earth/environment.

    It’s interesting that you refer to “ideologues of the left”. That strikes me as a wonderful example of the kind of projection we see every day from extreme right-wing ideologues. I’m not an ideologue, and in my personal circle of friends & relatives I think I know 2 left-wing ideologues. Most ideologues I know of are right-wingers–folks like Sen. Janes Inhofe, the Liar in Chief (so beloved by evangelicals), and so on. (Oh, and let’s not forget about the “ideologues” in the Pentagon, who have said that they regard global climate change as potentially threatening in the future).

    The folks I know who are concerned about the environment are pragmatists, –many of them are only minimally politically aware, in fact–and their concern arises frrom their desire to have clean air and water for them and their families.

    If the desire to have your family grow up with clean air and a pollution-free environment strikes you as ideological, well, that strikes me as distorted thinking, and I don’t know what to say.

  • That is the typical eve Angelica reply. It means, that people do not have to do anything to help the earth and tha god will provide. It means that people can continue bel bing out coal, drilling the ocean, driving a lot, etc. in other words, pigs can be pigs.

  • That is hardly a refutation of my prior post nor a sane rebuttal to the facts presented. It does not negate the evidence of rising sea levels, permafrost melting or the loss or arctic ice. That was stupid.

    You guys really have to find another argument style besides bullshifting and deflection. It doesn’t actually pose a legitimate argument and makes you look foolish.

  • Montanagirl seems unaware that anthropogenic (human caused) climate change is the strong consensus of climate and other scientists. Please get informed.

  • The consensus of scientists is that 2050’s ten billion population will be unsustainable. Please get your head out of your rear end.

  • Yeah, a consensus. A consensus NOT of science and an open flow of information, but a consensus of CENSORSHIP, of bullying, of blackmail, of threatening dissenters’ funding & publishing opportunities.

    A consensus of threatening your very career if you cast any potential public doubt on any part of the Global Warming Religion, for any reason, even if you publicly support the global warming thesis, even if you have a science PhD.

    THIS is the consensus Edd supports.

  • She doesn’t believe in science; she’d rather push her religious fantasies, all of which are unsupported theories.

  • Your asinine objections to scientific inquiry are laughable, especially considering your devotion to unproven, unsupported and outright wacko religious declarations.

  • I suppose you’re old enough to remember when the consensus of scientists was that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and the earth was on the edge of another ice age.

  • I do not disagree with anything you said, and my hunch is that agree in 99% of our ideas about religion.

    In my thinking about religion in past years (decades), I never considered the “social” aspect of religion. That is, religion serves many purposes, and one of those is bringing people together in various ways, and for various purposes. Thinking about this aspect of religion has broadened and deepened my understanding of religion. FYI.

    Also, I think you might find it interesting to do some reading about reason vs emotion. I agree with your final statement, but the sad fact is that clear, accurate, useful thinking is not so easy, for anyone. (See, for example, the observations about reason and emotion by Jonathan Haidt.)

  • It is our God-given responsibility to be wise stewards of the planet we’ve been entrusted with. That means basing our decisions on a balancing of needs and sound science, not speculation and scientific “consensus.” As Crichton once commented, when you hear reports on “the consensus of scientists” hold onto your wallet, you’re being had.

  • Sorry buddy, but I am going to take the word of various news agencies and Nat Geo over a self styled denialist website. Plus we still have other effects to address such as the arctic shipping line and loss of Siberian permafrost. You seem hung up on the bears. The fact that the arctic sea has become a navigable waterway is pretty compelling evidence for those who are being objective here.

  • I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding something about your comment.

    What does it have to do with the fact that some people don’t care about human pollution of the creation they think was created by god?

  • Global warming is not a religion. Neither is science. You’re just butthurt because science-deniers like yourself are going the way of the dinosaur.

    Good riddance.

  • No one would dispute that nature exerts an enormous influence on life–volcanoes & dinosaurs, etc.

    Nevertheless, my reading tells me that in the past 200 years or so–and even more so in the past 50 years–human activity has contributed an enormous amount of damage to the earth.

  • One should be careful about climate cycles, as these cycles are centuries long, and even longer,

    Have you ever studied the Milankovitch cycles, based on the earth orbiting the sun. These cycles range from thousands to millions of years long.

  • This is the first time I’ve ever seen that name.

    Are there any scientists today who believe in Milankovitch cycles?

    Of all the scientists who’ve expressed a view on global climate change, it appears to me that the overwhelming number of them believe its real. It’s impressive as well that those scientists who believe it’s real, come from a variety of different perspectives.

    And impressive as well that even those liberals at the Pentagon believe global climate change is real.

  • You might start with this site:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    We have to remember that the climate has been changing for 4+B years, mostly without human help. Man has a influence, The real question is how much.

    Looking a past climate cycles, such as temperature records ( Central England since mid 1600 ), or sea level rise (tidal gauges from the mid 1800’s), not much.

  • I repeat:

    1. names of respected scientists who believe in this cycle?

    2. what about the fact that the overwhelming number of scientists who’ve been polled or expressed an opinion, believe in anthropogenic climate change?

  • We could with Dr.s Roy Spencer & John Christy who run the NASA Nsatellite troposphere temperature global monitoring system.

    Over half the scientists don’t bother to respond.

ADVERTISEMENTs