Vast Majority of Evangelicals Not Represented by 'Evangelical Climate Initiative'

NAE, 'Who's Who' of Evangelical Leaders, Do Not Endorse ECI Position

Feb 08, 2006, 00:00 ET from Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA)

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The executive council of the 30-million
 member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) recently passed a motion
 saying there is "ongoing debate about the causes and origins of global
 warming" and acknowledging a "lack of consensus among the evangelical
 community on this issue."
     -According to The Washington Post, a "Who's Who" of more than 20
 evangelical leaders, including major figures like Charles Colson, Dr. James
 Dobson, Rev. John Hagee, Rev. D. James Kennedy, Dr. Richard Land, Dr. Richard
 Roberts, Rev. Louis Sheldon, Donald Wildmon, and others, have gone on record
 as seeing room to "disagree about the cause, severity and solutions to the
 global warming issue."
     -Effort to cut greenhouse gases hurt the poor.  By making energy less
 affordable and accessible, mandatory emissions reductions would drive up the
 costs of consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose
 especially harmful effects on the Earth's poorest people.  The Kyoto climate
 treaty, for example, could cost the world community $1 trillion a year -- five
 times the estimated price of providing sanitation and clean drinking water to
 poor developing countries.
     -According to the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, even
 "full and perfect compliance" with the Kyoto Protocol would mean the average
 global temperature in 2050 would be only 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit lower than it
 would be in the absence of emissions controls.  Its impact on Black and
 Hispanic communities in the U.S., on the other hand, could cost minorities 1.3
 million jobs in 2012.
     -A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world's most
 distinguished economists, examined various proposals for dealing with climate
 change by reducing carbon emissions. The expert panel, in what has come to be
 known as the "Copenhagen Consensus," regarded these proposals as "bad
 projects" and "having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits."
     -The science is not settled on global warming. More than 17,000
 scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Petition
 stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
 carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
 foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
 disruption of the Earth's climate."
     -According to a paper written for the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
 (ISA) by Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of
 Alabama in Huntsville and former senior climate scientist with NASA's Marshall
 Space Flight Center, "We cannot say for certain how much the planet may be
 warming, how much is due to human activities versus natural cycles, or whether
 these changes in global temperature would be mostly good or mostly bad for the
 majority of people."
     -Climate models are suspect.  Our atmosphere and climate are so complex
 that meteorologists have only a rudimentary grasp of what actually causes
 storms, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps and climate conditions that have
 changed many times over the centuries. In addition, as pointed out in the ISA
 paper, feedback mechanisms are poorly understood and "it has been calculated
 that only a couple percent increase in low clouds would offset the warming
 effects of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use."

SOURCE Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA)