Print

Mail

wiki links

The environment, evangelists and US energy policy

`The depressing reality is that everyone needs to become a responsible eco-citizen and think of the consequences of every polluting action he or she takes.'

Cynics would say that it is just further proof of the strong links between fundamentalist Christian groups in the US and the Bush administration. But the US -- like an attendee of a Hydrocarbons Anonymous meeting -- has finally admitted its dependence on oil, coincidentally just as evangelical Christian groups in the Deep South have started making serious noises about the need to tackle global warming and advocating responsible stewardship of God's Earth.

US President George W. Bush's statement that his country was addicted to oil during last month's State of the Union address was seen as a coup by environmental commentators, who say it is the first step toward a radical realignment in US energy policy.

It has been a source of frustration for environmentalists around the world for years that the nation that has benefited most from scientific discovery over the last two centuries has rejected out of hand the opinion of most of the world's most respected scientists when it comes to global warming. And although Bush didn't actually talk about the link between carbon emissions and global warming during his speech, he did talk about the need for "clean energy," "zero emission" technology and the need for harnessing more renewable energy sources, all steps that would contribute to reducing the amount of carbon emissions discharged into the atmosphere by the world's biggest polluter.

Of course, Bush would not admit to the link between carbon emissions and global warming as this would be tantamount to saying that the US was wrong on Kyoto. But it finally seems as if one of the most environmentally unfriendly US administrations in memory has experienced a sort of eco-awakening.

This radical change in policy, designed to reduce US dependence on energy sources from "unstable parts of the world," may be just that: a move in response to the threat posed by terrorism and the need for the US to reduce its presence in the Middle East.

This stark admission could also be ascribed to the growing number of people talking about Peak Oil -- a theory in energy circles that claims global crude production has peaked and is now starting on a downward slope. This, experts say, will result in the supply of oil becoming increasingly unpredictable and ever more expensive as competition for it will be fierce. The Bush administration is in a better position than most to get accurate information on this subject.

Another credible assumption, however, is that the Republican Party and Bush are reacting to pressure from evangelical lobbyists with an eye on the 2008 presidential election.

This is because the Earth and caring for its future have become hot topics in the Bible Belt, which is seeing evangelical churches -- powerful grassroots organizations that make up a large voter bloc and carry substantial influence within Republican circles -- talking about the need to combat global warming.

Leaders of these groups, such as Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, are now pushing responsible stewardship of the Earth and campaigns aimed at protecting the planet, including the Evangelical Climate Initiative and "What would Jesus drive?" -- an attempt to make Christian motorists think about the fuel consumption of their gas guzzling sports utility vehicles and trade in their vehicles for more fuel-efficient, low-emission models.

This behavior from the far right of American society has surprised many, as fundamentalist Christian groups are often thought of as lacking trust in the scientific community, a perception that stems from the evolution-creation debate that has raged ever since Charles Darwin first published his theory.

To avoid this apparent conflict, Christian groups talk about the need to tackle global warming and look after "God's Earth" as being "moral and spiritual" issues, rather than an environmental one as such.

But what has been responsible for bringing the evangelical community on board the environmental bandwagon? It is said that nothing brings home reality more than death and destruction, so roll back the clock to the end of last August and cue Hurricane Katrina, the Category 5 hurricane that smashed its way through the Gulf Coast region, causing chaos, destroying New Orleans and surrounding areas and killing hundreds of people in the process.

This disaster reminded people in the south of the power of Mother Nature, and the fact that scientists claimed rising atmospheric and sea temperatures -- attributable to global warming -- contributed to creating a storm of unprecedented strength could not have gone unnoticed by people in this devoutly religious region.

If it was this that helped to finally push the White House into admitting it has a problem, then more power to the evangelists. But all this newfound zeal and effort to save the future of "God's Earth" will be in vain should people like Cizik remain unwilling to compromise on what US Vice President Dick Cheney so famously termed the "non-negotiable" US lifestyle.

In 1991, the Union of Concerned Scientists released America's Energy Choices, which showed that adopting cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy measures could dramatically reduce US petroleum dependence and cut carbon-dioxide emissions in 2030 by more then 70 percent relative to emissions in 1988, more than enough for the US to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, this report, like anything that requires governments, businesses and individuals to practice efficiency, curb wasteful habits and compromise on their resource-abusing modern ways, was ignored. It seems that prudence is not an option.

In a recent interview with the BBC World Service, Richard Cizik took great pleasure in showing the reporter around his family home. When it was suggested that by having two automobiles Cizik was not practicing what he preached, he pointed out that as both vehicles were hybrids, and because they produce half as much pollution as normal vehicles, then it was OK to drive two, smug in the knowledge that he was "doing his bit" for the Earth.

Herein lies the problem.

To tackle global warming, not only the US administration, but the rest of the world's governments, companies and individuals will need to take drastic action and reduce wasteful practices if they are to cut carbon emissions to acceptable levels.

The depressing reality is that everyone needs to become a responsible eco-citizen and think of the consequences of every polluting action he or she takes. Do I really need a gas-guzzling four-wheel drive for single-occupancy city driving? Do I need to take the car to work when there is a perfectly good subway system, and do I really need my air-conditioner on at 19?C all day long?

Governments and industry apart, these are the questions everybody everywhere around the developed world needs to be asking themselves on a daily basis.

Questions like "What would Jesus drive?" miss the point, because everyone knows that Jesus would have taken the bus.

Richard Hazeldine is a writer based in Taipei.
This story has been viewed 2323 times.