Related articles and links |  1 of 2

In may, Richard Cizik, governmental affairs vice president for the National Association of Evangelicals, talked to The Wall Street Journal about human-induced climate change (often referred to as "global warming"). Cizik pointed to polls of the NAE membership that revealed "even George Bush supporters believe you have to offer something more … than simply voluntary measures" to address the problem.

Cizik identified himself as "one of those Bush Republicans," but added, "I disagree with the President on this one."

Soon Cizik and Bush may be able to agree. In August, the administration finally acknowledged that the climate change since 1970 cannot be accounted for in purely natural terms, and that "smokestacks and tailpipes are the likely cause." According to The New York Times, that judgment was delivered "in a report to Congress accompanied by a letter signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce and the President's science adviser."

The administration has previously brushed off such reports or even suppressed them. Now it is time for whoever leads the United States to address its contribution to the problem. Attitudes are changing across the board. In August, Business Week carried the cover line, "Global Warming: Why Business Is Taking It So Seriously." The article shows that major energy companies realize that it is to their advantage to make voluntary changes that preempt government actions and save them money.

Not everyone is persuaded about the link between human activity and climate change. But the scientific data have grown increasingly solid as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports moved from 1994 to 1997 to 2004. The real danger is to wait until the data are undeniable. While ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, has been dragging its feet, the second largest has been a pioneer of change. BP chief executive John Browne has called on governments and industry to undertake a drastic shift to boost the use of technologies that could help slow down the buildup of greenhouse gases. "It would be too great a risk to stand by, do nothing, and to wait so long that when the impact on the climate really does begin to be felt, you have to take action which is so disruptive as to cause serious damage to the world's economy," Browne told the Council on Foreign Relations in June.

Global climate change is not on every citizen's list of hot issues. The small shifts in temperature documented by scientists are hard to feel in your own backyard. And when you read that the average global temperature will change by somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees from 1990 to 2100, it sounds trivial.

It isn't. While the numbers sound small, the effects are likely to be great. Because climate systems are complicated, the changes will ripple out to result in more frequent heat waves, drought, torrential rains and floods, increased tropical diseases in now-temperate regions, and increased peak wind and precipitation in tropical cyclones.

While warming will no doubt benefit some frigid regions, these sorts of disasters will disproportionately impact the poor. American Christians give generously to relief and development organizations when people are devastated by droughts or floods or hurricanes. Clearly, we care about the victims of such "natural disasters." To borrow from Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision and Samaritan's Purse, our hearts are broken by the things that break the heart of God. This month, representatives of Christian relief and development organizations are meeting for a briefing on climate change and an opportunity to discuss how they can face these challenges.

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

October 2004, Vol. 48, No. 10