Avoiding a Climate Tipping Point

  • If the global temperature goes past 2 degrees Celsius - the danger point - we might not be able to get the climate back to a more natural state (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Two new studies in the journal Nature are trying to answer: how much is too much when it comes to global warming? Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

Two new studies in the journal Nature are trying to answer: how much is too much when it comes to global warming? Rebecca Williams reports:

These studies look at what we’d have to do to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius.

That’s considered the danger point for climate change.

Past that point we might not be able to get the climate back to a more natural state.

These papers suggest that we’ve got to cut back on burning fossil fuels a lot. They say by 2050, countries like the US need to cut emissions by more than 90% below what they were in 1990.

The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have proposed cutting emissions by less than that – 80%.

The researchers make the point… of all the coal and oil and natural gas in the ground that we know about, we can only burn one fourth of that amount by 2050.

We’re burning it at a much faster rate.

The studies say, at the current rate, we could be past that tipping point in less than 15 years.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Recession Proof Construction

  • One company created a website that acts as kind of a Craigslist just for reclaimed building materials (Photo courtesy of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction)

In the middle of a recession that’s

crippling the construction field,

there’s at least one sector of

industry that’s doing pretty well.

That’s “material reuse.” Taking pieces

of old buildings and using them in

new ones. Advocates say used materials

could save developers a heap of money.

Samara Freemark has the

story of one re-use company that’s both

green and in the black:

Transcript

In the middle of a recession that’s

crippling the construction field,

there’s at least one sector of

industry that’s doing pretty well.

That’s “material reuse.” Taking pieces

of old buildings and using them in

new ones. Advocates say used materials

could save developers a heap of money.

Samara Freemark has the

story of one re-use company that’s both

green and in the black:

You’ve probably heard what’s going on in the construction industry
these days.

(news montage of housing crisis)

But in middle of all that bad news, there might be one bright spot.

“We’ve actually been expanding quite a bit. I guess it’s one of the
only times I’ve heard
of where that’s the case.”

That’s architect Brad Hardin.

He got interested in reusing building materials pretty early in his career.
He likes the way
the old stuff looked. And he likes the idea of saving resources. And
he’s also kind of
horrified by the tens of millions of tons of construction waste that get
tossed into landfills
every year.

But actually getting his hands on used materials, so that he could reuse
them- that turned
out to be a real pain in the butt.

“You know you’ll be literally going out to someone’s yard and getting
rained on, or
sorting through someone’s basement– it was kind of a hit and miss
process.”

A big part of the problem was simple logistics. Imagine you’re knocking
down an old
house to build a new one. You’d like to sell off whatever pieces of the
old building you
can. But how do you find someone to buy all that stuff? Where do you store
it while you
look for a buyer? And how do you ship the materials?

Harry Giles is a professor of green architecture at the University of
Michigan.

He says most developers don’t want to bother with all that hassle. In the
end, they usually
just end up bulldozing everything. Giles says that’s because there’s no
real secondhand
market for used construction materials- not like there is in a lot of other
industries.

“If you take the car industry, a lot of it is geared around the reuse of
materials. Not just
taking the car and crushing it, but taking it apart and finding useful
components on it.”

You know, like a salvage yard.

And that was the problem Brad Hardin wanted to solve – how to create a
secondhand
market for spare building parts. He figured that if he could do that,
reusing building
materials could actually end up profitable.

So last year he started a company called Planet ReUse. The company’s
website acts as
kind of a Craigslist just for reclaimed building materials. Buyers and
sellers can find each
other on the ‘net.

And Planet ReUse tests all material to make sure it’s up to code. That
way the buyer
doesn’t end up with, say, eight tons of rotten planking. And Planet ReUse
arranges all the
shipping- trying to hook up sellers to nearby buyers. That saves money and
fuel.

By removing those basic barriers, Hardin says his buyers save about 20%
compared to
buying new. And Planet ReUse still makes a profit.

And it’s also a start to reducing those millions of tons of landfill
waste.

So, what kind of stuff does he sell on the site?

“How much time do you have? Steel, flooring…”

It turns out there’s money in just about everything you can salvage from
a building.

Harry Giles says that cash is the key to cutting down waste.

“If people see that it’s a lucrative business to actually salvage
materials, that will drive it
much faster than concern for the environment.”

And it’s not just buildings. Remember President Obama’s inauguration
stage? Well, that
got torn down, and Planet ReUse is trying to get the pieces to New Orleans.
They’ll be
used to rebuild houses damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

It’s just one more way for Planet ReUse to prove that you can do good, be
green, and
make a little money too.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Greening of Religion

  • The Dalai Lama giving a lecture at the University of Michigan on April 20, 2008. (Photo by Mark Brush)

There’s a change going on in the religions
of the world. More people are hearing a green
message when they go to their place of worship.
Mark Brush reports major religious leaders are
spreading a message of caring for the earth:

Transcript

There’s a change going on in the religions
of the world. More people are hearing a green
message when they go to their place of worship.
Mark Brush reports major religious leaders are
spreading a message of caring for the earth:

The Dalai Lama is talking about the environment. And tens of thousands of people are
packed into this basketball arena to hear his message. This kind of a talk is a natural
fit. In the Buddhist tradition all sentient life forms are sacred. So you might not be
surprised to hear that the Dalai Lama thinks we need to cut our cravings for more and
more material stuff.

“We always want more and more and more – like that. So I think some lifestyle, I think have to, have to change. But this is not my business.”

(applause)

This kind of message is now coming from other religions too. The Vatican recently
declared pollution a sin. And, when he went to the United Nations, the Pope told
international leaders to work together on climate change and environmental protection.

And many Protestants are now spreading the green gospel. And it’s not just the more
liberal members of the church. Leaders on the left and the right are going beyond the
pulpit to preach about the environment. You can even catch them on primetime TV.
Here’s a clip from a commercial by ‘We Can Solve It dot org’. Preachers Al Sharpton and
Pat Robertson sit side by side on a couch by the ocean.

“Al lets face it. We’re polar opposites.”

“We couldn’t be further apart. I’m on the left.”

“And I’m usually right. And we strongly disagree.”

“Except on one issue. Tell ’em what it is reverend Pat.”

“That would be our planet. Taking care of it is extremely important.”

While this is a new topic for some religious leaders – other groups have been working for
a long time to green the church. The Evangelical Environmental Network promotes
something called “Creation Care.” And they faced a lot of push-back when they first started.

Jim Ball is the president of the Network. He says the environment was largely ignored
by evangelicals – but now that’s changed. As proof he says 120 senior evangelical
leaders signed onto to an initiative that promises to do something about climate change.
And he says many of them are quite conservative. Ball says these leaders started to change when
they got an earful from their own kids and grandkids.

“So it was the younger generation saying to some of these senior leaders, “you know, you
really need to stop just looking at this and saying ‘you know, that’s for other people.’
You’ve got to look at this and understand this is a serious problem.”

But not everyone is accepting this green sermon. Some in the Christian Church point to
the book of Genesis and believe man should have dominion over nature. They think
environmentalism goes beyond tree hugging and actually promotes worship of nature
instead of God.

Andy Hoffman is a professor at the University of Michigan who speaks on religion and
the environment. He says these kinds of interpretations of the Bible prevent
many people from taking environmental issues seriously.

“Many religious people are skeptical or cautious about environmentalism. They look at
people who care about the environment as deifying the environment. And therefore they
see a challenge there. And that’s really not the case. It’s completely consistent to be
a devout Christian, or a devout Jew, or a devout Muslim and care about the environment
and have those two mesh quite nicely. So to have religious leaders come forward and
articulate this viewpoint dispells that myth and takes away that problem.”

Hoffman says these religious leaders connect people to their moral values. And if
caring for the environment is a part of that – it can go a long way in changing the way
people live.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Interview: Economics and Environment

In the last few decades the economy of the
US has grown faster than ever before. Corporations
work hard to expand and to drive share prices higher.
The author of a new book ‘The Bridge at the Edge of
the World’ says in this process of growth, capitalism
is not paying for its consequences. Lester Graham
talked with Gus Speth, the dean of the School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale. Speth
says since the environmental movement began in the
1970’s, we’ve dealt with many of the symptoms of
environmental damage, but not many of the causes:

Transcript

In the last few decades the economy of the US has grown faster than ever
before. Corporations work hard to expand and to drive share prices higher.
The author of a new book ‘The Bridge at the Edge of the World’ says in this
process of growth, capitalism is not paying for its consequences. Lester Graham
talked with Gus Speth, the dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies at Yale. Speth says since the environmental movement began in the
1970’s, we’ve dealt with many of the symptoms of environmental damage, but
not many of the causes:

Gus Speth: “We did do some cleaning up, and certainly rounded out a lot of the
rough edges, but despite that, we are in a very dire situation now, I believe. The
global warming issue, disruptive climate change coming at us, is the most potent
environmental threat that we’ve ever experienced. Meanwhile: we’ve been losing
an acre a second of tropical forest for decades now, we’re consuming vast
quantities of fresh water from our streams and rivers, a flock of rivers no longer
reach the ocean in the dry season around the world, we’re over-fishing 75% of
the marine fisheries, 90% of the large predator fish in the oceans are gone, half
of the wetlands are gone, we’re extinguishing species a thousand times the rate
of natural extinction. So, these are very serious problems.”

Lester Graham: “You suggest in your book that tackling environmental problems
will require us all to stop looking at things with such a narrow view. The
environment is connected and affected by business, and government, and
lifestyle – or, in other words: capitalism, democracy, and consumerism. Do you
want to change the world? Is that what it is going to take?”

Speth: “Well, I think, quite literally, we have all got to be out to save the world at
this point. And I think these issues are linked. We forget sometimes that the real
thing that is undermining the environment is economic activity. And this growth
carries with it enormous potential for increased environmental destruction. Now,
the problem is, companies have enormous incentive not to pay their
environmental costs, to push these costs off on to other people and on to future
generations. The result is that the prices for their products are environmentally
dishonest.”

Graham: “Can you give me an example of a case like that?”

Speth: “Well, I would say any oil or coal company, and us in using the oil and the
coal in our electricity and in our homes or whatever. We’re paying nothing
compared with the environmental cost that the use of the fossil fuels is imposing
on our environment and on our own human health. And that basic arrangement
is buttressed by enormous power, now, on the part of the corporate sector. Not
only are they the principle economic actors in our system, but they are the
principle political actors in our system, now. It is buttressed by our own
consumerism, our own pathetic capitulation to the advertising machine that we
face everyday. And it’s buttressed by government, which is really wholly
dependant now on growth for raising extra taxes without having to raise tax rates,
and for holding out the promise of better lives which don’t materialize.”

Related Links

Songwriter Connects With Kids

  • Joe Reilly and poetry writer Nora sing at a CD release party for Joe's album. (Photo by Chris Reilly)

Singer-songwriter Joe Reilly recently made an album with kids. The songs on the album are all about nature. Reilly discovered that when it comes to writing and singing about nature, some of these kids are wise beyond their years. Kyle Norris has this story:

Transcript

Singer-songwriter Joe Reilly recently made an album with kids. The songs on the album are all about nature. Reilly discovered that when it comes to writing and singing about nature, some of these kids are wise beyond their years. Kyle Norris has this story:


It’s hard to get kids to think outside their own little world. Let alone get them to think about the entire planet. But Joe Reilly seems to have a knack for getting kids to think big. And to talk about something pretty big, nature. He does it with music:


“Realizing the way that music can reach a place in any person, but especially in a kid that is a place of excitement and inspiration, there’s really like a magic there.”


Joe Reilly recently wrote an entire album with kids. He’d ask the kids open-ended questions, like “why is it important to protect the river?” And then he’d weave their answers into lyrics. He had one song with music, but no words. And then he heard a poem written by one of his ten-year old students. The poem by Nora Sinnett blew him out of the water. Reilly asked Nora if she was willing to read the poem over the song’s music.


(Song lyrics): “I am important. I may be only a whisper in a sea of voices. I may be only a blade of grass on a lawn. I may be one flower in a garden, a minnow in an ocean, a grain of sand on a beach, one star in the sky. But I am important. I matter. I stand tall. I am proud.”


She says she wrote the poem one day while she was hanging out in her grandpa’s library and she was just feeling kind of blue:


“I just like, saw a little ray of sunshine in window and I thought wow, that little ray of sunshine is really small but without that little ray of sunshine there wouldn’t be any other bits of sunshine. Then the room would just be dark. It just made me feel like I’m important because like, there’s only one leaf on a tree but without leaves the tree would be really bare. So little things make up big things.”


At a benefit show for the CD, Nora and Joe performed the song together. Afterwards, a mob of children and adults surrounded Nora. Kim Hunter is a poet and writer-in-residence in the Detroit schools. He was one of the people congratulating her.


“She has some really great metaphors in there. She’s a small person but she still, as says in poem, stands tall. And that’s, for a ten-year-old, a pretty sophisticated metaphor, and she employed it in a lot of different situations. It was a good poem.”


Hunter wasn’t the only person who thought it was a good poem. Songwriter Joe Reilly jokes that he’s been writing longer than Nora has been alive. He says he wishes he could write things as profound as Nora’s poem:


“I think there’s a real power in giving kids a voice and they can speak to adults and other kids, in a way we grown folks can’t always do.”


When Joe Reilly was a kid the adults in his life taught him about music and nature. He spent a lot of time exploring both of these things. He says they helped him to feel safe and good. These days, music and nature give him hope, which he says is a welcome change. To the hopelessness he feels about the environment and the future:


“When I can sit and make music with kids about how the beautiful earth is and how we want to celebrate our connections and inter-connections with all living beings. That just takes me beyond that despair, and it anchors me in some kind of hope.”


Reilly says that if he had sat down alone and tried to write a bunch of songs about nature, the songs would have been more serious. And not as fun. And silly. And lighthearted as it was with the kids. Like in this song. Where Joe and the kids invented a word to rhyme with river:


(Song): “Shibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby diver/We got a song about the Huron River/Water is such an important life-giver/We will protect it we will deliver”


For the Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Climate and Plant Extinction

A new study finds that as plant species go extinct around the world,
ecosystems could become a lot less productive. Rebecca Williams
reports, this could be bad news for the services people depend on from
nature:

Transcript

A new study finds that as plant species go extinct around the world,
ecosystems could become a lot less productive. Rebecca Williams
reports, this could be bad news for the services people depend on from
nature:


Plants work overtime for us. They produce oxygen and food, among a lot
of other things. But many plant species are going extinct.


A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says as
we lose plant species, ecosystems could become half as productive as
they are now.


Brad Cardinale is the study’s lead author. He says preserving habitats
could slow the loss of species:


“For every place we build, every place we put a house, every place we
put a mall, we set aside another tract of equal size for the other 10 million
species on the planet to persist.”


Cardinale says we should start setting aside more land soon. Some
estimates suggest as much as half of all known species on Earth could
be extinct by the end of this century.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Interview: The Future of Water in a Warmer World

  • Peter H. Gleick, President and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, is concerned that without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will have dire impact on water resources. (Courtesy of the Pacific Institute)

With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water. Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather patterns:

Transcript

With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water.

Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather

patterns:


PG: Overall, the planet is gonna get wetter because as it gets hotter, we’ll see more
evaporation. The problem is, we aren’t always gonna get rain where we want it.
Sometimes we’re gonna get rain where we don’t want it. And at the moment it looks like
the biggest increases in rainfall will be in the northern regions where typically water is
less of a problem. Or at least water quantity is less of a problem. And we may actually get
less rainfall in the Southwest where we need it more.


LG: Let’s talk about some of the precious areas to North America. For instance, a lot of
people are worried about snow pack in the Rockies.


PG: Yes, well, one of the most certain impacts of global climate change is going to be
significant changes in snowfall and snowmelt patterns in the western United States as a
whole, actually in the United States as a whole because as it warms up, what falls out of
the atmosphere is going to be rain and not snow. Now that really matters in the Western
United States, in the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada where our snow pack really
forms the basis of our water supply system. Unfortunately, as the climate is changing,
we’re seeing rising temperatures and decreasing snow pack. More of what falls in the
mountains is falling as rain, less of it’s going to be snow. That’s going to wreck havoc on
our management system, the reservoirs that we’ve built to deal with these variations in
climate. Incidentally, it’s also going to ruin the ski season eventually.


LG: You mentioned that the farther north you go, according to some models, we’ll see
more rain or more precipitation. At the same time, with warmer temperatures, we’ll see
less ice covering some of the inland lakes, such as the Great Lakes, which means more
evaporation. So, what are we going to see as far as those surface waters sources across
the continent?


PG: Without a doubt, global climate is changing. And it’s going to get worse and worse
as humans put more and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And as it gets
warmer, we’re going to see more evaporation off of the surface of all kinds of lakes,
including especially the Great Lakes. And interestingly, even though we don’t have a
great degree of confidence of what’s going to happen precisely with precipitation in the
Great Lakes, all of the models seem to agree that over time, the Great Lakes levels are
going to drop. And it looks like we’re going to lose more water out of the surface of the
Great Lakes from increased evaporation off the lakes than we’re likely to get from
precipitation, even if precipitation goes up somewhat. And I think that’s a great worry for
homeowners and industry around the margin of the lake. Ultimately for navigation,
ultimately for water supply.


LG: There’s a lot of talk about the gloom and doom scenarios of global warming, but
they’ll be longer growing seasons and we’re also going to be seeing, as the zones change,
more of this fertile ground in as northern US and Canada get longer growing seasons.
That’s not a bad thing.


PG: There are going to be winners and loser from global climate change. And
interestingly, there are going to be winners and losers at different times. Certainly, a
longer growing season is a possibility as it warms up. And I think that, in the short term,
could prove to be beneficial for certain agriculture in certain regions. Interestingly
though, and perhaps a little depressingly, over time, if the globe continues to warm up, if
the globe continues to warm up, evidence suggest that the short term improvements in
agriculture that we might see might ultimately be wiped out. As it gets hotter and hotter,
some crop yields will go down after they go up. We’re going to see an increase in pests
that we didn’t used to see because of warmer weather. Unfortunately, pests like warmer
weather. Furthermore, if we don’t really get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions, if we
don’t really start to cut the severity of the climate changes that we’re going to see, the
doom and gloom scenarios unfortunately get more likely. Over time, the temperatures go
up not just one or two or three degrees Celsius but four or five or eight degree Celsius.
And that truly is a catastrophe for the kind of systems we’ve set up around the planet.


HOST TAG: Peter Gleick is a water expert and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, based in California.

Related Links

Some Extreme Climates Disappear

A new study predicts global warming will prompt some types of climates
to disappear from parts of the world. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A new study predicts global warming will prompt some types of climates
to disappear from parts of the world. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Scientists asked that if the planet warms up, where would new climates
be created and where would existing climates disappear? Geography
professor Jack Williams heads a research team at the University of
Wisconsin and University of Wyoming.


Using computer modeling, he predicts by the year 2100,the main changes
will be in low-lying tropical areas, at the top of very high
mountains, and at the poles:


“So the warmest areas get warmer and are first to move outside the
range of what we experience at present and then the coldest areas,
also get warmer… so that these sets of cool or cold climates
disappear as we move to a warmer world.”


Williams says where climates disappear, that will put local species in
danger. He says it’s not clear what the new climates will be like.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Corporate Campuses Go Green

  • While new factories take up a lot of land, some corporations, such as GM, are setting aside acres for wildlife on corporate campuses. (Photo by Dustin Dwyer)

About a quarter of all private property in the
U.S. is owned by corporations. In the past, many
companies have gone to great expense to maintain
their property with manicured landscaping and green
lawns. Now, as environmental issues are becoming an
important focus in the business world, more
corporations are turning their land into wildlife
habitats. As Gretchen Millich reports,
they are finding it’s good for the environment and
it’s good for business:

Transcript

About a quarter of all private property in the
US is owned by corporations. In the past, many
companies have gone to great expense to maintain
their property with manicured landscaping and green
lawns. Now, as environmental issues are becoming an
important focus in the business world, more
corporations are turning their land into wildlife
habitats. As Gretchen Millich reports,
they are finding it’s good for the environment and
it’s good for business:


Setting aside land for wildlife is becoming a big trend among
corporations in the US. For example, near its plant in Muscatine, Iowa,
the Monsanto Company set aside a 500-acre sand prairie. It’s home to
some rare species, including the Illinois mud turtle. Just outside of
New York City, Exxon Mobil is protecting 750 acres as a habitat for
birds like wild turkeys and wood ducks.


Bob Johnson is president of the Wildlife Habitat Council.
The council brings together businesses and environmental groups to
conserve and restore natural areas. His group has helped set up
hundreds of wildlife preserves at corporate facilities:


“Most of our members are not recognized as being very green and I think
that is really changing now because many companies are trying to find
ways of being a lot more conscientious about materials and energy. But
the real bottom line is habitat. Habitat is the greatest factor in the
control of the decline of species on the planet and I think companies
are realizing this is important for them to do.”


Johnson says there are lots of advantages to being green in the world of
business. Studies show that employees are happier and more productive
when they work for a business that shares their values. Also, it’s much
less expensive to maintain a wildlife habitat than to fertilize and mow
several acres of grass.


Bridget Burnell works at a new General Motors assembly plant near Lansing, Michigan.
Burnell is an environmental engineer. She oversees 75 acres on the factory grounds
that’s been set aside as wildlife habitat:


“What we’re walking up to right now is the first major wetland that you
come across. This is what all the employees can see as they are
driving along the main road east of the plant.”


It’s an unlikely spot for a wildlife refuge: on one side a sprawling
automobile factory, on the other, the intersection of two major
highways. It’s noisy, but still somehow serene.


Birds, turtles, muskrats, and frogs all live here undisturbed. A great
blue heron is flying over the wetland and in the distance, we see three
whitetail deer. Burnell says on nice days, teams of employees come here
to take care of the grounds and sometimes they work with community
groups:


“We’ve had about 20 events this year that we’ve had different community
organizations out here. Some of it’s directly related to educational
type things, like learning about the wetlands and the prairie
and different types of habitat. Others are specific to a particular
project, maybe wood duck boxes or song bird boxes, that type of thing.”


This factory is the only automotive plant to receive certification from
the US Green Building Council for Environmental Design and Construction.
GM saves about a million dollars a year in energy costs and more than 4
million gallons of water. And although there’s no direct cost savings on
a wildlife habitat, GM is finding that preserving natural areas can
improve the company’s image in the community, and also with its
customers and investors.


Bob Johnson of the Wildlife Habitat Council says these wildlife projects
are attractive to green investors, who choose stocks based on how a
company deals with the environment. He says some investors believe that
environmental responsibility is a reflection of how a business is
managed. And a lot of that information is available on the Internet:


“The individual on the street can do that today. They can evaluate this
kind of information and make judgments. So I think people are looking
for ways of distinguishing where they are placing their resources.”


Johnson says since corporations are the largest group of landholders,
they’re in a good position to slow down the fragmentation of wildlife
habitat. He says corporate leaders are discovering that with a little
effort, they can win friends and gain a competitive advantage.


For the Environment Report, this is Gretchen Millich.

Related Links

Commentary – Preach Truth About Global Warming

Some Christians take issue with their conservative brothers in faith when it comes to global warming. Commentator Gary Schlueter says he’s a Christian, but he doesn’t see anything wrong with believing in the science that indicates global warming is partly caused by human activity:

Transcript

Some Christians take issue with their conservative brothers in faith when it
comes to global warming. Commentator Gary Schlueter says he’s a Christian,
but he doesn’t see anything wrong with believing in the science that
indicates global warming is partly caused by human activity:


In Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, we are warned to beware of the two
children under Father Christmas’ long red robe, this boy ignorance and this
girl want, but especially beware of this boy. Race forward a century or so and
we have Reverend Jerry Falwell concluding, “I believe that global warming is a myth.”
I repeat, beware this boy, ignorance!


Reverend Falwell, an influential evangelical Christian leader, is not alone among
his contemporaries in preaching that global warming is a myth, or worse: some clerical
leaders say to believe otherwise could jeopardize one’s salvation.


The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, the ISA, is a mixed bag of religious leaders,
scientists and policy experts who, through a dark glass, shine a Biblical light on the
issues of environment and development. According to the ISA, “most U.S. evangelicals do not
back the call for regulating greenhouse emissions.” I repeat, beware this boy!


Recently, a group of more moderate Christian evangelical leaders joined together to
form the Evangelical Climate Initiative. They say global warming is real, that humans are
causing it, and that we need to do something about it. The ISA stands firmly against them.
The question is, why?


Why, in the face of hard warnings on the cover of the conservative Time Magazine with headlines
that read to “be worried. Be very worried” about global warming? Why, when the NASA scientist who
warned us 25 years ago that human activity was changing the Earth’s climate now warns
us we have a decade before we pass the point of no return? Got that? Point of no return.
Ten years! Why, against the growing tide of public and clerical opinion that mankind’s
contribution to global warming must be stopped, do they tell their flock to be like
Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman and not to worry?


Are these Mad Magazine evangelicals antagonistic toward science because science brought
us the concept of evolution? Can they be so petty? Or do they see global warming as a way
to fulfill their direst prophecies of gloom and doom? Can they be so proud? Or is it their
sheer greed to gobble up Earth’s resources that brings them smiling sanguinely to the brink of
a disaster so profound the habititability of our entire planet is at risk? Can they be so selfish?
Selfish, proud, petty? Beware this boy!


This Earth is our only real sanctuary, it is a gift of God, how can it be of so
little concern to these anti-Earth evangelicals that they can continue to preach against it,
preach against God’s gift? I conclude, beware this boy, ignorance!


Host tag: Gary Schlueter is a former president of the Virgin Island Conservation
Society.

Related Links