Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Hmm... religious conservatives, global warming and Times idiocy...


Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."...

The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms" — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an "Evangelical Climate Initiative" including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges...

Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Their letter was addressed to the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of churches and ministries, which last year had started to move in the direction of taking a stand on global warming. The letter from the 22 leaders asked the National Association of Evangelicals not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position.

E. Calvin Beisner, associate professor of historical theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., helped organize the opposition into a group called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. He said Tuesday that "the science is not settled" on whether global warming was actually a problem or even that human beings were causing it. And he said that the solutions advocated by global warming opponents would only cause the cost of energy to rise, with the burden falling most heavily on the poor.

Burden falling most heavily on the poor? Costs of energy to rise?

Where have I heard that before?

HOUSTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Mandating costly alternatives to oil in the name of a cleaner environment could impoverish people and lower living standards, the Saudi Arabian oil minister said on Tuesday.

"I believe that we should not impoverish people in the name of a cleaner environment," Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi told an energy conference. "Lowering living standards, or limiting peoples' ability to rise out of poverty, in order to improve the environment trades one potential health hazard for another."

He said that would be the result of asking consumers to give up oil for a less efficient and more costly alternative fuel that would otherwise be uneconomical.

Naimi's comments came a few days after U.S. President George W. Bush said America was addicted to Middle Eastern oil. He also committed to raising alternative energy funding by 22 percent for clean coal, wind and solar power, ethanol, and fuel cells.

Anyhoo, the phrase that struck me in the Times article was "evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business."

What the heck does that mean?

Really - does this writer think the heads of Matsushita, Huawei, Citgo, ...and any number of global companies not run by evangelicals are anti-business?

Does this writer say that "evangelicals" tend to favor policies that have led to employment growth decline or stagnation in the US, increased inflation, and equities prices that are the envy of no one?

Is this writer saying that "evangelicals" are in favor of capitalism "in general" - but again, as opposed to whom? Can we assume that "evangelicals" tend to favor eating meals that are tasty?

No comments: