Thou Shall Not Burn Fossil Fuels: Global Warming and Religious Faith

The issue of global warming and support for the Kyoto Protocol is "a litmus
test for the faith community."
- Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the National Council of
Churches (NCC)


A flurry of news stories in recent months suggests a monolithic, nationwide
response to global warming within the religious community. The movement
depicted often speaks in apocalyptic terms and looks to government
regulation of the economy to protect us. However, these stories mistake a
small but well-funded effort on the part of some in the religious community
for a consensus within the entire religious community.

In fact, the National Religious Partnership for the Environment
[http://www.acton.org/programs/editorials/sirico/greening.html] and the
National Council of Churches' Interfaith Global Warming Campaign [
http://www.acton.org/programs/editorials/sirico/ncc.html] have received
little support from the faithful in the pews. Efforts in the five states
currently operating climate campaigns average fewer than fifty supporters
per state. And these endorsers rarely represent their denominations.
Nevertheless, organizers claim to speak authoritatively for America�s
faithful.

The cold reception among religious leaders to these efforts is
understandable. Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
[http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm] saying, in part, "there is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption
of the Earth's climate."

The threat posed to the economy by the climate treaty, on the other hand, a
worry expressed by both business and labor leaders alike, raises significant
concerns. The poor would be hardest hit by the economic disruption resulting
from the treaty�s ratification. Studies like the WEFA analysis
[http://www.acton.org/resources/comment/exec.pdf] conducted on the impact of
ratification on individual U.S. states suggests tremendous economic costs.

Meeting the Kyoto target for carbon dioxide emissions would, according to
WEFA:

- Nearly double energy and electricity prices, and raise gasoline prices an
additional 65 cents per gallon.
- Cost 2.4 million US jobs and reduce US total output $300 billion (1992$)
annually, an amount greater that the total expenditure on primary and
secondary education.
- Harm U.S. competitiveness, as developing countries will not need to raise
energy prices (or product prices) to meet mandatory greenhouse gas targets.
- Reduce the average annual household income nearly $2700, at a time when
the cost of all goods, particularly food and basic necessities, would rise
sharply.
- Diminish state tax revenues by $93.1 billion due to job and output losses
attributable to lost US competitiveness in the global market and higher
energy costs.

Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol does not include mandatory emission
reductions for less developed countries, which are expected to emit
three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Many producers
currently located in the developed world will simply shift their base of
production from the developed world to the less developed world under Kyoto,
in an effort to avoid mandatory reductions. This would impose tremendous
economic costs on the developed world and increase real pollution in the
developing world because of lax commitments there to the environment. It
would do this without significantly reducing overall greenhouse gas
emissions.

In fact, Bert Bolin, former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [http://www.forbes.com/Forbes/97/1103/6010352a.htm], the UN
body responsible for many of the global warming fears, says that, if fully
implemented, the present plan would cut warming twenty-five years from now
"by less than 0.1 degree C, which would not be detectable."

Religious leaders are right to remain skeptical of this effort to transform
unsound science and policy into a moral crusade. Sound environmental
stewardship requires reasoned, prudent judgments about the earth that take
into account incentives for human action. Competitive pressures in the
marketplace encourage energy conservation by entrepreneurs, especially when
the costs of using a resource rise due to its scarcity in a time of great
demand. Companies that fail to adopt cost saving, energy efficiency measures
in the face of scarcity end up less competitive than their
environment-friendly competitors. Thus the market helps to see that the good
environmental steward is properly rewarded for his efforts.
- Policy Analyst Michael B. Barkey, for the Acton Institute