Memo 9: Climate, Religion & Change

Cristin Williams
4/11/11
Readings Discussed: Wilkinson, Sarewitz et al.

Summary:
For today's class I read the Wilkinson and Sarewitz et al articles. The Wilkinson article I found rather interesting. The article focused on the relationship between evangelical christians and climate change, an unlikely pairing. As Christianity has always had a rather uncomfortable relationship with science, it is interesting to see modern-day Christians opening up to the possibility of climate change. Though the evangelicals aren't exactly citing purely scientific reasons for climate change, they are agreeing that humans are to blame. From a Christian standpoint, we should help remedy climate change because God's Earth is a beautiful place that he gave to us. Bible passages emphasize that God gave us the Earth and expects us to rule it and care for it. The Christian concept of assisting the less-fortunate also plays into global warming, as the poorest nations are struggling the most with climate change effects. Conflicts arise with the fact that evangelicals are traditionally Republican, a political group that generally tends to favor business over environmentalism. Wilkinson highlights a new breed of moderate and liberal evangelicals, who are open to the ideas of climate change but still retain a resistance to ideas like gay marriage. Alliances of environmentally concerned Christians have formed in recent years, including the ECI. These groups are important because they can rally their followers start living more sustainably.

The Sarewitz et al article, to me, seemed like an overview of the basics of global warming. This article was likely very informative and mildly revolutionary in the year of its publication (2000). An Inconvenient Truth was released six years later in 2006, and gave many Americans (including myself) their first lesson in Climate Change 101. The Sarewitz article provides an interesting history of climate change, from the scientists of the 1920's that first postulated about the effects of carbon dioxide and industry upon the atmosphere, to the 1997 meeting at Kyoto. Sarewitz then also outlines the problems that arise with creating predictions and projections concerning climate change. The article also discusses the increasing severity of hurricanes and severe storms, almost an ominous prediciton of 2005's Hurricane Katrina. The point that Sarewitz drives home is that he perceives the need for a "re-framing" of climate change. Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty 95-0, so clearly new conversations needed to be held on the topic of global warming.

Compare/Contrast
Both articles, rather obviously, address the topic of change. The most important difference between the articles, in my opinion, lies in when they were written. The Sarewitz et al was published in 2000, while Wilkinson was published in 2010. Such an incredible amount of research, discussion, and progress has been made on the subject of climate change in these 10 short years. The Sarewitz article more so introduces the reader to the idea of climate change, its origins, its implications, etc. Since the Wilkinson article was written 10 years later, it is capable of addressing a very specific topic within the subject of climate change. Not many scholars are currently writing pieces that introduce the reader to the basics of climate change; the discussion has moved on to recent developments and niche arguments. Both articles essentially address the subject of climate change "believers" and "non-believers." Both use facts to support climate change, and the Wilkinson article even cites Bible verses in support of climate change.

Questions
Most of my questions and interests lie in the Wilkinson article. Without sounding overly secular, I have a difficult time understanding why Evangelicals use a mixture of science and scripture to rationalize climate change, but they refuse to use it to rationalize other liberal ideas like homosexuality and abortion. I guess these ideals like more in tradition, whereas climate change is a new "problem," one that can be addressed by modern religious leaders in modern ways. Also I disagree that the idea that environmentally concerned evangelicals can mix with conservative republicans. The notions of environment and the economy are very contradictory in the minds of many Republicans. From how I see things, I don't think nature is a remotely partisan idea. We share the Earth and we're all entitled to its beauty and responsible for its health. Religious people all over the world are in the position to adopt a progressive viewpoint toward climate change. History doesn't dictate how we should handle this environmental matter. No "tackling climate change" tradition exists, so we need not feel inclined to follow any pre-determined path. Our generation will effectively write the gospel of "slowing climate change." Let's hope it has a happy ending.