Dear Colleague:
Global warming is the apocalypse with an environmentalist twist.
Steven W. Mosher
President
PRI Weekly Briefing
16 March 2006
Vol. 8 / No. 11
Secular Substitute for the Apocalypse
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
Last month, a group of 86 evangelical Christians, including some highly
prominent and influential leaders, issued a statement endorsing the global
warming myth and calling for economically crippling action. The tide of
hysteria over this profane reworking of the Bible's apocalyptic prophecies
continues to rise, and it seems environmentalists and their media allies
are succeeding in pulling more conservatively-inclined religious people
into their doom-mongering orbit. This is not to say that there are no
legitimate environmental concerns-but global warming isn't one of them.
Instead, it's a cultural and political power grab by a Left
disenfranchised by socialism's discredit.
The statement of the Evangelical Climate Initiative says that scientific
objections to the theory that human activity contributes to global warming
are no longer worth considering and declares, "Even small rises in global
temperatures will have such likely impacts as: sea level rise; more
frequent heat waves, droughts, and extreme weather events such as
torrential rains and floods; increased tropical diseases in now-temperate
regions; and hurricanes that are more intense. It could lead to
significant reduction in agricultural output, especially in poor
countries. Low-lying regions, indeed entire islands, could find
themselves under water. (This is not to mention the various negative
impacts climate change could have on God's other creatures.) Each of
these impacts increases the likelihood of refugees from flooding or
famine, violent conflicts, and international instability, which could lead
to more security threats to our nation."
The science behind all of these assertions is questionable at best. The
media trumpets a finding that part of Antarctica's ice sheets are
shrinking-but downplays studies that find other Antarctic ice sheets
growing. Many scientists believe that most global warming will occur in
colder areas, making life more pleasant and extending the growing season.
In fact, higher proportions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere help most
crops grow. There is no evidence that hurricanes are growing more
intense. And biggest of all: Despite years of intense study, there is no
way to show a correlation between human activity and global warming, which
could easily be caused by increasing solar radiation as part of the sun's
natural cycle or natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate caused by
other factors. At any given moment in history, the Earth's climate is
either warming or cooling; nature rarely goes in a straight line.
All this has been thoroughly worked over elsewhere, such as on
www.junkscience.com or in Michael
Crichton's State of Fear, or in the
pages of our own PRI Review. What's puzzling is why conservative
Christians should buy into the anti-civilization, pantheistic fanaticism
that environmentalists have been pushing for decades. (In my own mind,
much doubt is cast on global warming because of my memory of the global
cooling scare of the 1970s. The eco-obsessed crowd went from global
catastrophe by cooling to global catastrophe by warming in less than 20
years.)
Leftist evangelicals such as Rev. Jim Wallis signed the declaration, but
so did conservatives such as Rev. Rick Warren, author of The
Purpose-Driven Life; Todd Bassett, National Commander of the Salvation
Army; Dr. Duane Litfin, President of Wheaton College; Richard Stearns,
President of World Vision; and Rev. Timothy George, Executive Editor of
Christianity Today. Last year, the National Association of Evangelicals
(NAE) put out its own concerns about global warming, but thankfully
refused to endorse this Evangelical Climate Initiative. Yet Rev. Richard
Cizik, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for NAE, is involved with
the Evangelical Environmental Network and its Creation Care magazine,
which promote global warming mythology.
Note: I suspect we will begin to see "climate change" continue to displace
"global warming" as the fear-mongering term of choice. After all, any
weather event that deviates from the mean, as most do, can be blamed on
"climate change." "Global warming" is too narrow and specific, and it
might be putting some people off when exceptionally cold winters, high
rainfall, low rainfall, etc. are all blamed on warming.
The evangelicals' statement called for capping carbon dioxide emissions,
the key element of the rejected Kyoto Treaty and a sure way to cripple the
American economy, not to mention send the remainder of our manufacturing
jobs overseas. "In the United States, the most important immediate step
that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national
legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide
emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a
cap-and-trade program," says the statement. "On June 22, 2005 the Senate
passed the Domenici-Bingaman resolution affirming this approach, and a
number of major energy companies now acknowledge that this method is best
both for the environment and for business."
The only way economic growth can continue, whether here or abroad, is if
energy consumption continues to increase. Economists agree on that, by
and large. America's oil and electricity needs will continue to grow as
her economy does. No technology is yet available that can change that
except nuclear energy. And since environmentalists, bureaucrats, and
lawyers have prevented the building of more nuclear plants, that means
more fossil fuel consumption. The evangelicals' proposal, or other
similar proposals such as one from Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Sen.
Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.), would put a stopper in the American economy.
Some might ask if that would be so bad. One thing it would be bad for is
the environment. In the contemporary world, wealth is strongly correlated
with a cleaner environment, while poverty is correlated with environmental
degradation. In an excellent Aug. 20, 2002 article written in
anticipation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, James K.
Glassman wrote, "Let me offer a prescription for sustainable development
that begins with a simple and powerful idea-an idea which, unfortunately,
will often be at odds with what delegates, journalists and other observers
hear in Johannesburg. The idea is that economic growth leads to levels of
wealth and income that, in turn, inevitably produce societies that are
cleaner, healthier and more stable and that use global resources more
efficiently. It is an idea that has been validated in academic studies
and by centuries of history, an idea that is especially important at this
time and in this place." As Julian Simon put it, "Human beings are not
just more mouths to feed, but are productive and inventive minds that help
find creative solutions to man's problems, thus leaving us better off in
the long run."
Radical environmentalists have an anti-people agenda, even advocating the
reduction of the Earth's human population to 1 billion or less. They
might want to ponder that the aging and increasingly childless populations
of Europe, already putting a strain on the social services of their
nations, will have less and less money to spend on environmental
regulation, and less reason to preserve the land for future generations.
And since the link between economic growth and environmental improvement
has been ironclad in modern times, they should also recall that economic
growth has never in history accompanied long-term population decline.
Nobody denies that poor countries have the worst environmental pollution
and ongoing destruction, while rich Western nations have the best
environments around-and getting better. We have passed through the
industrialization-at-all-costs phase and now can afford more environmental
protections.
Conservative evangelicals certainly aren't the only ones infected with the
global warming myth. The U.S. Catholic bishops endorsed a statement in
June 2001 that said, "Human behavior and activity are, according to the
most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with
assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth's
climate. Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this
warming, it could be quite serious. Consequently, it seems prudent not
only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take
steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future."
The theory of global warming apocalypse is an exciting, compelling way for
environmentalists, some scientists, and some politicians to enhance their
own power and importance while feeding people's fears of the future. It
provides a substitute for a key aspect of Christian faith. It is much
more inspiring than dealing with real but mundane environmental concerns:
toxins in foods, animals raised on antibiotics, polluted water, and the
like. In fact, the global warming myth diverts attention and resources
away from environmental efforts that actually help God's Creation. It's
phony all around.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the
Population Research Institute.
Glassman's article may be found at:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/glassman082002.asp
_____
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, Va. 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
Website: www.pop.org
_________
(c) 2006 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
http://pop.org/donate.cfm. All donations
(of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated.
_________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, go to:
http://pop.org/subscribe-weekly.cfm or email us at
pri@pop.org and say
"Add me to your Weekly Briefing."
__________
The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."