E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
Technorati“We believe this is being driven by emotions, emotions that will lead to decisions that will lead to negative consequences that will create tremendous harm not only to American families but impoverished families all around the globe,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and former vice chairman of the Environmental committee in Louisiana.
Signers of the declaration said while they do acknowledge, in varying degrees, that global warming is real and humans are partly to blame for the earth’s warming, they believe that for the most part the heating of the earth is due to the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet.
The “We Get It!” view starkly contrasts that of the IPCC and some prominent green evangelicals who believe that scientific evidence strongly supports that global warming is a serious crisis and man-induced.
The IPCC report last year – which is said to be the clearest and most comprehensive statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution – warns that 30 percent of the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction, up to 250 million people are likely to experience water shortage, and stronger and more frequent natural disasters are expected in the near future.
The Rev. Richard Cizik, head of the Office of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, has been the face of the green evangelical movement. He has visited churches and Christian college students nationwide to give seminars on the detrimental effects of global warming and what Christians need to do to help.
Last year, he also joined forces with the scientific community to urge the U.S. government to pass a carbon emission law and for churches and individuals to minimize unnecessary energy usage.
“If you are for the sanctity of life and ignore the health impact of the environment on the unborn, I think that is a limited understanding of how everything is connected in life,” Cizik, who was among Time magazine’s most influential people in the world this year for his environmental protection efforts, said earlier.
“You can’t separate either these principles like taking care of the earth and the sanctity of life – they overlap,” the NAE leader contended. “So to say you are pro-life but to ignore what is occurring to the unborn from environmental degradation is an abomination.”
To Cizik and others in the green evangelical movement, creation care is a more holistic understanding of the evangelical pro-life stance.
Supporters of the “We Get It!” campaign would readily agree with Cizik that creation care is important, but they strongly disagree with him on the severity of global warming and the policies to address the problem.
Opponents of the popular global warming view say that until all scientists can agree that global warming is as severe as some claim and that it is mainly human-induced, they are against any policies that would raise energy costs because they would put the lives of millions in jeopardy based on uncertain or debatable scientific evidence.
Beisner on Thursday offered a proposal that both sides could agree on – more widespread use of nuclear energy. He said despite disagreements on the position of manmade global warming, nuclear energy is a feasible solution because there is already adequate technology to support it, it is extremely safe, and is price competitive with petroleum, coal and other sources of energy to produce electricity. Continue »
mike »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
