ChristiansUnite Forums

Poll: 70% of evangelicals
see global warming threat
Majority of respondents want government to take action even if economy is harmed
Posted: February 16, 2006
3:00 p.m. Eastern



A poll released today shows 70 percent of American evangelical Christians see global warming as a "serious threat" to the future of the planet.

Conducted by Ellison Research, the survey indicates a majority of evangelicals agree with 85 Christian leaders who signed an Evangelical Climate Initiative unveiled Feb. 8 that calls for government action to deal with so-called global warming. The initiative includes a campaign of newspaper, TV and radio ads.

Signers of the initiative include, among others, Rick Warren, pastor and author of "The Purpose Driven Life," Rich Stearns, president of World Vision, Commissioner Todd Bassett, national commander of The Salvation Army, and David Neff, executive editor of Christianity Today.

The purpose of the initiative is to "encourage action by evangelical Christians and all Americans to make life changes necessary to help solve the global warming crisis, and to advance legislation that will limit emissions, while respecting economic and business concerns."

According to a statement, the poll included the following results:

    * 95 percent of evangelical respondents agreed that "God gave us dominion over His creation, so we have a responsibility to care for it."

    * 84 percent of evangelicals agreed that reducing pollution is a form of obedience to the biblical command to love your neighbor.

    * 92 percent agreed that "in the long run, it will be cheaper to protect the environment now than to fix it later."

    * 95 percent agreed that "a healthy environment helps to keep your family healthy."

    * 51 percent said the U.S. should take steps to address global warming, even if there is a high economic cost.

Also, the poll found that two-thirds of evangelicals are either completely or mostly convinced that global warming is actually taking place.

The survey is accurate to within plus-or-minus 3.1 percentage points with a 95 percent confidence level. Funded by the Evangelical Environmental Network, the poll took place in September.

Not all Christians are pleased with the Evangelical Climate Initiative. In a column this week at the Christian Worldview Network, Brannon Howse claims the initiative "is being funded by pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, globalist foundations."

Howse notes the group's efforts are being financed by organizations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Hewlett Foundation.

Wrote the columnist: "The Rockefeller Brother's Fund has given grants to such radical environmental groups as Greenpeace. Let's not forget that it was the Rockefellers that donated the land and formed the United Nations.

"According to a press release by the pro-life group Human Life International, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund supports many anti-Christian ideals and organizations including the United Nation's Millennium Peace Summit."

Howse also points out the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation approved a grant of $600,000 to International Planned Parenthood Foundation to provide "sexual and reproductive health services to adolescents in Brazil, Ecuador and Peru."

WND found and editor Joseph Farah slammed the group of 85 in a column today, saying the leaders should make sure they're not some of the ones Christ will ultimately reject, as He predicted in the book of Matthew: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Writes Farah: "Before attempting to work out the salvation of the world by government force, maybe these folks, too, should be certain they work out their own personal salvation with fear and trembling.

"I'm not the judge of where they will spend eternity. But I do know they are about the business of making earth a living hell."

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote this week: "If evangelicals make the environment another 'cause,' they are likely to be as frustrated and disappointed as when they exercised misplaced faith in politics to cure other social evils. Should they desire a real effect on the planet, let them return to the eternal message that has been given them to share with a world that needs it now more than ever."

False prophets of evangelicalism
Posted: February 16, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

We Americans are being thoroughly indoctrinated by the mass media, the government schools, the propaganda arms of the federal government and the pseudoscience-government complex on the phony issue of global warming.

Now, if all that is not enough, some significant church leaders are attempting to make the global, pagan, socialistic agenda behind the conspiracy a matter of faith.

You probably heard the news – 85 "evangelical leaders" have formed a coalition to raise visibility about global warming.

Raise visibility? How could this make-believe, fake, phony crisis have any higher visibility? Why should it?

If it exists, which is highly questionable, it certainly wasn't caused by man and there is nothing mankind can do about it. If it doesn't exist, which is probable, these charlatans are going to rob you blind paying for it any way.

That's basically all you need to know about global warming. It's a bunch of hot air, all right – hot air generated by people whose goal is always the same, redistributing wealth and reordering civilization.

Now I expect this sort of thing from Al Gore. The man is a liar. That's what he does for a living. And he has done well for himself in purposely, knowingly deceiving people in his quest for a global utopia run by his puppeteers, whoever they may be.

But Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life"?

Todd Bassett, national commander of the Salvation Army?

Leith Anderson, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals?

That's right. Those are just three of the Christian luminaries who signed on to this pact with the globalist devil – who sold their American birthrights for a mess of political correctness.

Joining them in this scam are World Vision President Rich Stearns, Wheaton College President Duane Litfin, Christianity Today Editor David Neff and Executive Editor Timothy George.

They all signed on to the "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action" – and climbed into bed with funding sources that hate God, hate Christianity and hate freedom. Among them, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund – a group determined to bring the world under the yoke of global government and global religion.

But I guess none of this should really surprise us. After all, just a month ago, Rick Warren was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer as indicting Christian fundamentalism as a moral and spiritual equivalent of Islamic fundamentalism.

"Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism – they're all motivated by fear," he said. "Fear of each other."

Have you ever wondered what Jesus was talking about – who He was talking about – in Matthew 7:22-23 in the context of turning people away on Judgment Day? These are people who seem to believe they are Christians.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

That is tough language. It sounds like there are going to be some people shocked, disappointed, devastated when they finally get to meet Jesus face to face.

Who are these false prophets – these workers of iniquity – who prophesied in the name of Jesus, but never knew Him?

I would suggest to those signing on to the lies of global warming, to the coercive government and supra-government plans to tackle it, to the confiscation of wealth and the destruction of private property that this fake crisis portends to give those verses some serious consideration.

Before attempting to work out the salvation of the world by government force, maybe these folks, too, should be certain they work out their own personal salvation with fear and trembling.

I'm not the judge of where they will spend eternity. But I do know they are about the business of making earth a living hell.

Governor to push global warming fight
Bold policy gambits expected in bid to lower greenhouse gases

Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is expected this month to release a plan to combat global warming that recommends raising petroleum prices and requiring industries to report, for the first time, their greenhouse gas emissions.

The increase in gas prices would fund research into alternative fuels.

Nine months ago, Schwarzenegger garnered international headlines by calling for California to mount an aggressive effort to address global warming. Now he faces the difficult part: shepherding new policies into place that could affect every car owner, farmer and big industry in the state.

The proposal, drafted by the governor's senior environmental advisers, has both business groups and clean-air advocates girding for a fight in Sacramento that could have profound national environmental and political implications. With President Bush reluctant to steer federal policy toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions, states and cities have taken the lead on what most environmentalists agree is the most critical issue facing the planet.

"What you're considering in California is much broader than anything being discussed in other states -- it's very significant,'' said Ned Helme, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Clean Air Policy, a nonprofit environmental think tank.

For Schwarzenegger, global warming could be a tricky political issue this year.

Sources at the state Environmental Protection Agency -- which is charged with writing the recommendations to achieve Schwarzenegger's goals -- say the proposal will call for a new charge on petroleum equal to less than a penny per gallon of gasoline. Conservative activists have begun to complain about the idea, branding it a gas tax.

The proposal could be released just before the state Republican Convention, which begins Feb. 24, where GOP activists already are preparing to debate resolutions condemning other Schwarzenegger proposals they disagree with.

And environmentalists, who have had a rocky relationship with the governor, will watch closely this year to see if Schwarzenegger is willing to champion changes likely to be opposed by some of the governor's big-business allies. Many in the environmental movement complain that Schwarzenegger has done far more talking about clean-air policies than enacting them.

"So far, it's been policy by press release,'' said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. "The key is whether the governor will stand by these proposals and actually do them.''

In a speech before a U.N. environmental conference in San Francisco in June, Schwarzenegger said there is no denying the threat of global warming and set short- and long-term targets to reduce emissions of gases like carbon dioxide, which is produced by everything from cars to power plants. The governor's targets are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010; lower emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Most scientists believe gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are altering the Earth's atmosphere and are leading to higher temperatures and changes to things like sea level and precipitation.

Schwarzenegger instructed a team of administration officials, led by state EPA head Alan Lloyd, to compile a report detailing how emissions could be cut. A draft of the report was published in December; the final version is expected to be released by the end of this month.

The draft report listed dozens of options -- many already under way -- to lower emissions, ranging from requiring farmers to change the way they handle animal manure to ramping up the state's use of the wind and sun to generate electricity.

The report will be delivered to the governor's office and the Legislature. Many of the proposals would have to be enacted through legislation.

The report noted that the state faces numerous problems, from less water to increased strength and frequency of storms, if it does not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also argued that stimulating innovative technologies to reduce pollution can create jobs and save consumers money.

Among the report's recommendations are two that are likely to become hot-button issues in Sacramento: adding a so-called public goods charge on gasoline and requiring industries like cement makers, electricity generators and oil refineries to report their greenhouse gas emissions.

Industries are regulated with respect to many emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, but don't face the same controls on greenhouse gases.

The added charge on gasoline would pay for research into alternative fuels and other ways to make cars more fuel-efficient.

Advocates for the idea and the report's authors note that a similar public goods charge is included in every Californians' energy bill and that money has gone to funding renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that have lessened pollution and saved consumers money.

"It's very appropriate to have a small charge on petroleum to mitigate its impacts,'' said Bill Magavern, a Sierra Club lobbyist.

Business groups say further driving up the price of fuel will hurt the economy.

"I think if you look at most polling, Californians want their taxes on gas to go toward improving the transportation system, not toward something that might marginally improve carbon emissions,'' said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, which is spearheading a new coalition called Sustainable Environment and Economy for California, or SEECalifornia, that intends to represent business interests as the global warming initiative progresses.

Zaremberg said the new business coalition will argue that many of the ideas in the draft report would do little to address global warming.

He noted that restricting cement makers, for example, could lead manufacturers to leave the state.

"You're not going to reduce the demand for cement, you'll just move the production to China or Arizona or anywhere else with fewer restrictions,'' he said. "Then you have a situation that is actually worse for global warming, with lesser environmental standards than California already has, and you add in the truck traffic needed to get the cement back to California.''

In addition to opposing the new charge on gas, the group opposes requiring companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that it should be voluntary.

But supporters of the idea say it is a crucial way to develop a benchmark for emissions.

Requiring companies to report how much greenhouse gases they produce is seen as a first step toward a growing trend in combating global warming, called a cap-and-trade system in which emission levels are capped and industries can buy and sell credits with each other to reach mandated reductions.

The report describes a cap-and-trade system but does not make it a primary recommendation.

There already is some movement toward capping emissions in the energy sector, however. The state Public Utilities Commission voted 4-0 Thursday to begin capping emissions on power plants used by the state's three investor-owned utilities.

And combatting global warming appears likely to be an election issue this year. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who hopes to be Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent in November, unveiled a plan Thursday that he said would reduce California's use of gasoline and diesel fuel by 25 percent in the next 10 years.

What Schwarzenegger will do with the final report remains to be seen. Many clean-air advocates were disappointed that the governor didn't mention the issue in his State of the State speech last month.

Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman, declined to comment on whether the governor supported a new charge on gas or forcing new mandates on business, but said the report, and meeting Schwarzenegger's targeted goals, are a top priority.

Democrats are preparing legislation related to global warming, some of which goes further than the report's suggestions. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, is authoring legislation, called for in the draft report, that would better coordinate funding for research into energy efficiency programs.

And Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County), is pushing legislation that would actually cap greenhouse emission from several large industries. Pavley wrote the landmark law requiring automakers to provide more fuel efficient cars in California beginning in 2009 and said the idea of reducing the same emissions from factories and other stationary sources is the logical next step.