Over at Gristmill, David Roberts has been trying to drum up interest in a new report on a conference organized by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies focused on "closing the gap between science and action" on climate change (Download americans_and_climate_change.pdf).
It’s a big report, and along the way mentions that Americans are "time-starved," which of course is why all too few of us get around to reading big reports.
If you want to a taste but not the full meal, my suggestion is to read the foreward by James Speth and the 39 recommendations at the back.
I’ll be posting some favorite passages, great ideas, and topics for further research in the next few days, as time permits.
One of the most forceful passages, I thought, came when it came to the question of values. Here was a recommendation that came out of a working group on religion and ethics:
Preamble to Recommendations
1. The current moral imperative on climate change
articulated by many in the faith community recognizes
that:
a. Any action that risks the quality and viability of life
on earth and future generations is fundamentally an
act of destruction and morally unacceptable.
b. Changing something as fundamental as the chemistry
of the Earth’s atmosphere is morally unacceptable.
c. Any action that increases the risks to the most
vulnerable is morally unacceptable.
2. America as the world’s richest nation has historically
and currently contributed so much to the climate
change problem that it is morally obliged to take
leadership responsibility to address this problem.
One of the members of the conference was Rev. Richard Cizik, who as head of the National Association of Evangelicals represents 54 denominations, 45,000 churches, and a constituency of 30 million evangelicals.
Cizik opposes abortion, stem-cell research, and homosexuality, but he’s also concerned about climate change, and has been confronting right-wing Republicans such as Senator Rick Santorum in public on the issue. (You might recall this story from Amy Sullivan on "The New Evangelicals.")
This seems to have brought a counter-reaction.
A Washington lobbyist on the religious right told The Guardian:
"Rich is just being stupid on this issue. There may be a debate to be had but … people can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God really going to let the Earth burn up?"
Kit Stolz 