Common Problems, Uncommon Grounds--Initial thoughts

Note: Back in March, as a result of an editorial  I wrote, I was invited by the editor-in-chief of Theoecology, an on-line journal associated with the Southeast Baptist Theological Seminary that explores the intersections of theology and ecology, to write a paper.  It is to be a thought piece on getting believers and non-believers onto the same page concerning ecological issues.  I have put together a preliminary sketch of how the paper is going to be structured, but wanted to get some thoughts down here at the beginning of the process.

When Pope Francis extended a hand to the religiously unaffiliated soon after his election to the papal throne, suggesting that Catholics and non-believers could be “our precious allies in the effort to defend human dignity, in building a peaceful co-existence between peoples, and in carefully protecting creation,” it was music to the ears of many in the non-theistic community.  Later still, when he suggested to atheists, "Just do good, and we'll find a meeting point," voices could be heard among non-theists thanking the pontiff for his recognition of their potential for good (to be fair, there was also a good bit of snark in the response, as well).  This goodwill was somewhat undercut as the Vatican began rolling back the more radical implications of this message.  Still, a hand of cooperation was offered, one which I have suggested atheists would be foolish to ignore, inasmuch as we are able to agree on what constitutes human dignity, cooperation and environmental stewardship.

Left out of this discussion are Protestant and other religious groups.  In the United States, at least, this is an untenable position, as action to address major issues spinning out of protecting human dignity, international peace and the environment will be political.  Even assuming an idyllic union of Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated in America, this accounts for only about 40 percent of the population.  Protestants of various sorts (mainline, evangelical, members of historically black churches), on the other hand, account for slightly more than 50 percent.  Further, writ large, this division is a political division, with Catholics and the unaffiliated tending to skew Democratic and Protestants—with the notable exception of the historically black churches—tending to skew Republican.  This division is, according to polling data, reflected in positions of members of these communities on issues of human dignity, international cooperation and the environment.  This paper will explore the last of these divides by focusing on a single environmental issue, anthropogenic climate change or global warming, by trying to tease out some of the underlying tensions, and by offering some thoughts on how the divide might be bridged.  

Some preliminary observations are possible at the outset.  Polling in 2011 suggests that 63 percent of the U.S. population accepts the premise that there is solid scientific evidence that the earth is growing warmer.  Of this group, 38 percent accept that this is a man-made problem, 18 percent believe it is caused naturally, and 6 percent do not know; 28 percent of overall respondents did not accept the premise and 9 percent were unsure.  This is down from 2006, when the poll was first conducted, when the numbers were 77 percent in the affirmative (47 man-made/ 20 natural/ 10 don't know), 17 in the negative, and 6 percent unsure.  Such numbers mark a steep decline, to be sure, but represent a slight improvement over 2009's numbers: 57 percent affirmative (36 man-made/ 16 natural/ 6 don't know), 33 percent negative and 10 uncertain.  Self-identified Democrats were most likely to accept the reality of climate change, with 77 percent accepting the evidence, compared to 63 percent of independents and 43 percent of Republicans.  These numbers should be compared with the large majorities of scientists and, especially, to the 97 percent of climate scientists who are reported to accept anthropogenic climate change as a reality.

Partisan divide on the issue of climate change can be, to some extent, correlated with the political identification of religious groups. Evangelical Protestants and Mormons in the 2008 religious landscape survey identified themselves as Republican or Republican-leaning by 50-34, and 65-22, respectively.   Mainline protestants were essentially tied, leaning slightly Democratic by 43-41.  Historically black churches, Catholics, Jews and the unaffiliated all skewed Democratic by 78-10, 48-33, 65-23, and 55-23, respectively.  Voting in the 2012 elections generally reflected this identification, with evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Mormons supporting Mitt Romney over President Obama 79-20, 54-44, and 78-21, respectively; black Protestants, Catholics, Jews , and the unaffiliated supported President Obama by 95-5, 50-48, 69-30, and 70-26, respectively.

However, despite the political leanings of members of these groups, there is a large area of agreement on issues relating to the environment and even to global warming.  For instance, across all of these faith (and non-faith) groups, majorities agree that environmental regulation is worth the cost in money and jobs.  There are also majorities in each group that accept the fact that global warming as a phenomenon is real, though there are differences on whether it is attributed to man-made or natural causes.  For instance, among unaffiliated, whit mainline Protestants, white Catholics, black Protestants, and white evangelicals, majorities of 75, 73, 70, 80, and 58 percent accept that the earth is warming.  However, only among the unaffiliated did a majority of respondents (58 percent) attribute warming to man-made causes.  Among white mainline Protestants, white Catholics, black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants, the percentages were 48, 44, 39, and 32, respectively.

Still, we see a clear consensus around two ideas.  First, that environmental regulations are worthwhile and, second, that the earth is getting warmer, whatever the cause.  This should, it would seem, form the foundation of action to combat global warming.  Knowing this, it would seem, is the first step for members of faith, and non-faith, groups who wish to work together on common issues.   But, as Michael Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus noted in their powerful 2004 indictment of the environmental movement, "The Death of Environmentalism," legislation is at a virtual standstill.  The situation has not improved since then.  

Why?  And why aren't groups working together across the faith (and non-faith) divide?  Part of the problem may be political.  Though majorities in all faith groups accept the reality of global warming, groups such as white Protestants who tend to vote Republican are least likely to accept that the cause of—and from this one can infer the solution to--global warming is man-made.  But there are also some potential structural impediments that also need to be explored.  For instance, does end-times theology play a part in making certain believers towards the need to address warming as an issue?  Does the very idea of global warming, and its apparent injustice, threaten notions of a just world?  Is it a matter of group dynamics, one in which religious leaders have failed to rally the faithful to the cause?

On the other hand, we have the potential problem of science, the language in which issues of the environment need to be addressed…