The global communities of science, business, and policymaking have largely moved past the debate about whether humans are causing serious climate change and on to the question of what to do about it. But the conservative Christian sector in the United States remains either indifferent or deeply divided, and our reticence is slowing the movement of climate policy in the United States.
Meanwhile, the discussion between climate change “believers” and “skeptics” is sometimes an ugly one. This week I had the opportunity to debate the leading evangelical climate-change skeptic, Cal Beisner, on the campus of Union University, where I teach. The experience was highly illuminating.
All but a very tiny fringe of skeptics now agree that global warming is happening. This is a fact that my debating partner conceded. So, notwithstanding author Michael Crichton, this aspect of the debate is now over.
On the question of whether climate warming is primarily human-caused, Professor Beisner quoted a number of scientists to claim that this remains an open question. I concede that there is not a 100 percent consensus on this issue among North American climate scientists. But I am still impressed by the fact that the strong majority of climate scientists, including the consortium of scientists called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as the national science academies of all leading industrialized countries, accept that climate change as we see it today is primarily human-induced.
The mechanism for this human-caused warming is clear. It is primarily caused by the release from our cars, homes, factories and farms of billions of tons of heat-trapping gases (“greenhouse gases”) that stay in the atmosphere for decades and block the escape of thermal radiation from the planet's surface.
This assertion is understood to be simply a fact by most relevant voices in our world today. Climate scientists largely accept it. Most of the world's governments accept it, as evidenced by their signatures on international climate treaties and their policies on climate change. Most in the global business community, including such companies as GE, Wal-Mart, Cinergy, Exelon, BP and Shell, accept it. Insurers accept it. Global investors responsible for trillions of dollars accept it.
We debated whether the consequences of global warming will be significant or perhaps even catastrophic. It is increasingly clear that the effects are already significant. Whether they will be catastrophic is less certain.
Significant consequences already include an increase in extremely hot days, especially in the northern hemisphere, surprising unprepared populations with sometimes deadly results. Some researchers argue that we have already seen an increase in the duration, intensity and possibly the number of major weather events such as hurricanes and typhoons.
Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of 9 percent a decade. The permafrost in the Arctic region is thawing rapidly. This thawing is releasing centuries of stored methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas. Parts of the Antarctic ice shelf are breaking up. Snow cover is decreasing on major mountain ranges all over the world. Over 80 percent of the world's glaciers are shrinking. Sea levels are slowly rising, and this may accelerate dramatically as warming increases.
The conditions for agriculture are changing. In our northern hemisphere, growing seasons are longer but soil moisture is decreasing. Animal habitats are changing dramatically, and some species are at risk of extinction. Earlier flowering, breeding and hibernating are apparent. There is evidence of the spread of diseases to new areas. We are disrupting millions of ecological relationships among species.
These changes may seem like mere inconveniences. But they won't be “merely” inconvenient for those whose lives are smashed by catastrophic weather, whose coastal businesses and homes are washed away, whose crops are damaged or destroyed. It will be especially problematic for the poor of our world, who lack the resources to cope with such traumatic losses.
We debated what kinds of steps should be taken to address this problem. I argued that everyone has something they can do. Especially as Americans, we need to reduce the environmental impact of our lives. The era of thoughtless consumption — the age of the Hummer — is over. We must reduce our ecological footprint, and live more gently on the earth. Nobody emits more greenhouse gases than Americans do.
We need to do what many individuals, churches, businesses and governments are already doing. We need to maximize energy efficiency in our homes, cars, power plants and airports. We need to design “greener” buildings, exploit the potential of alternative and renewable fuels, and find ways to sequester carbon dioxide. We probably need to set a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions and then find creative, market-based ways to meet those targets, as is already happening in parts of the United States and much of the world and has been supported by many in Congress.
Global warming is one of the major moral challenges facing our world in the 21st century. As a Christian, I view it as a discipleship issue of the highest magnitude.
-30-
David P. Gushee
University Fellow & Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy
Union University
www.davidgushee.com