Climate change: the role of religion

Because of their concern for others and their commitment to stewardship of God’s creations, many churches and religions have taken political positions on climate change, some of which specifically mention the threat of greenhouse gases. For example, the Presbyterian Church had the foresight to adopt a policy in 1989, which it reaffirmed in 2008, expressing serious concern that the trend towards global atmospheric warming (the greenhouse effect) represents one of the most serious global environmental challenges to health. . security and stability of human life and natural ecosystems. Recently, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UNCC) adopted a strong resolution on climate change urging church members to make stakeholder engagement in climate change an immediate and top priority for the upcoming five years, to demand action from legislators and Advocate for the creation and enforcement of carbon reduction laws, to make lifestyle changes to reduce the use of fossil fuels in our lives, our homes, our businesses and our churches, and to reduce fossil fuel use, our carbon footprint, and our complicity with the fossil fuel industry.

Apparently, Dr. Stephen Carter is unhappy with the United Church of Christ’s resolution and severely criticized the church in an op-ed, Do with Exxon what you would do with yourself. He is a professor of law at Yale, where he has taught courses on law and religion, war ethics, contracts, testing, and professional responsibility. Dr. Carter argues the matter as if he had accepted Exxon Mobil as a customer. Apparently, Dr. Carter wants us to treat Exxon Mobil like our brother. Although he claims he is not skeptical of climate change, his article will undoubtedly win praise from the network of libertarian think tanks, fossil fuel-funded foundations, front groups, and authors who have become part of the climate change denial machine. Perhaps the greatest evidence for this is that his arguments do not include things he should know.

He has pointed out to the UNCC without mentioning that most major churches and religions have similar statements. You probably should know, since the extensive list mentioned in the first paragraph was compiled by Yale University, where he teaches. Carter insinuates that the UNCC is hypocritical in urging its members to “take action against climate change while they are still using fossil fuels,” like the suburban family that crowds into the van to attend Sunday services. He finds it disconcerting for a church to take the view that it is perfectly fine to demand regulation that may harm working-class coal mining families in West Virginia, but that it is wrong to inconvenience its own members even a little. Theirs is one of those all-or-nothing arguments, which implies that if the church is committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels, it must give them up entirely. You know very well that being a resolution, it expresses the desire to improve future actions and that, at present, there are few energy alternatives available. He seems unaware of the low wages, dire conditions and dangers coal miners face, and that they would gladly change jobs if an alternative was available. Maybe he, or the church, should take that as a cause.

Dr. Carter’s main argument seems to be based on the law of supply and demand. He expresses his “perplexity and pain” that the resolution places the blame for our intensive use of fossil fuels on the companies that produce them, not on the consumers who demand them. He believes the problem is that the resolution, “like the general idea of ​​ditching fossil fuel investments, seems to confuse supply and demand.” Dr. Carter’s argument breaks down because the laws of supply and demand don’t apply very well to fossil fuel companies. They have used their immense benefits and political power to limit and inhibit the technologies that could compete with them. They have helped create propaganda and policies that discourage the use of wind and solar power, alternative fuels, and electric vehicles. Perhaps a coal miner would prefer to work on one of those emerging technologies, given the opportunity. We subsidize fossil fuel companies by several billion dollars each year, although they are well established and highly profitable companies, but they oppose subsidies to growing companies that could compete with them. Let’s level the playing field and see what choices consumers will make.

Dr. Carter is surely aware that fossil fuel companies gain a competitive advantage as consumers do not have to pay the true cost of using fossil fuels, which should include health and environmental costs. Nicholas Stern, one of the world’s leading economists, estimates that the cost and risks of climate change are equivalent to losing at least 5% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, and could rise to 20% of GDP or more. in the future. – and impose the additional risk of an environmental catastrophe. Taking 5% of the United States GDP for 2010 would give an environmental cost of $ 727 billion. When it comes to healthcare costs, the American Lung Association estimates the cost of exposure to the particulates alone at $ 281 billion annually. Those two add up to about $ 1.08 trillion for the US alone, and they are sure to grow unless we reduce our use of fossil fuels.

One also has to wonder about Dr. Carter’s motives when he refers to the United Church of Christ as part of the “religious left.” One of the favorite tactics of fossil fuel companies is to label their critics as leftist or liberal. Fossil fuel companies encourage the Cornwall Alliance, a religious organization based on the doctrine of Dominionism, to try to stop the growing conservation and environmental stewardship movements. The Cornwall alliance claims that stewardship is a Green Dragon trying to take over our churches and corrupt the true meaning of religion. His videos show various ministers who preach against conventional stewardship. It seems wrong to use the power and respect that people have for ministers and Scripture to criticize Christians who believe in good stewardship. The Cornwall Alliance will not disclose its funding sources, but its mission is certainly in keeping with that of fossil fuel companies.

Some Christians believe that what is happening to Earth is the Will of God and that there is nothing we can do about it. Others believe that if we start destroying the Earth, God will step in and save us. However, that kind of rhetoric clashes with the idea of ​​free will and personal responsibility. Certainly the many churches that have acted out of concern for their fellow men and out of a commitment to good stewardship should not be unfairly criticized.