Kruse Kronicle

Presbyterians back carbon emission agreement

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Presbyterian News Service: Presbyterians back carbon emission agreement

Research shows skepticism about other environmental measures.

LOUISVILLE — A strong majority of Presbyterians supports U.S. participation in international agreements to lower carbon emissions, such as the one negotiators are trying to develop this week in Copenhagen, Denmark.

They agree with proponents of the Copenhagen process that carbon emissions cause global warming. Seven in ten elders and other church members (69 percent) “strongly support” or “somewhat support” U.S. participation in carbon emission-cutting agreements.

Even more ministers support participation: 80 percent of pastors and 89 percent of specialized clergy engaged in ministries other than pastoring a congregation.

But according to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Research Services office May 2009 Presbyterian Panel survey, Presbyterians are not so sure about other proposed environmental measures.

“Presbyterians have a healthy skepticism about sweeping claims,” said General Assembly Mission Council associate for survey research Perry Chang. “They want to know more about the details.”

For instance, one-third of members (31 percent) and elders (35 percent) believe there is solid evidence that the earth is warming and that this warming is due to human activity. Similar proportions (members, 31 percent; elders, 35 percent) believe the evidence is mixed or don’t know if global warming is taking place.

That means that Presbyterian laypeople are more skeptical about global warming than other Americans. A 2008 Pew Center for the People and the Press survey showed that half of Americans (47 percent) believe warming is occurring thanks to human activity.

PC(USA) pastors’ views about global warming are in line with other Americans, as 48 percent of them believe in human activity-caused warming. Two-thirds of specialized clergy (64 percent) believe in this. …

Comments

7 responses to “Presbyterians back carbon emission agreement”

  1. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    Michael, this is OT, but I’m sure you’ll appreciate it. http://virtuphill.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-said-development-was-bad.html

    Reply
  2. Josh Rowley Avatar
    Josh Rowley

    I’m glad to read that “[a] strong majority of Presbyterians supports U.S. participation in international agreements to lower carbon emissions”–despite the fact that only a minority of Presbyterians is certain that the primary cause of global warming is human activity. I suspect old-fashioned Presbyterian pragmatism is at work here–as the saying goes, “Better safe than sorry.” Also, there are other reasons besides global warming to reduce the use of fossil fuels, including improving air quality (burning fossil fuels releases a variety of air pollutants) and conserving non-renewable resources (fossil fuels may not last forever).

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “I suspect old-fashioned Presbyterian pragmatism is at work here”
    Me too. Prudence is a virtue.
    “Also, there are other reasons besides global warming to reduce the use of fossil fuels, …”
    Amen. Fossil fuels have a number of bad side effects. The air is intolerable in a number cities in emerging nations.
    There is also the geopolitical issue of dysfunctional countries benefiting from oil production. Ideally, I’d like to see the day where very cheap renewable energy is the norm across the planet. It will empower the poor and it will cripple a number of thug nations in the process.

    Reply
  4. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    I think it’s funny that the writer of the article mentioned that “They agree with proponents of the Copenhagen process that carbon emissions cause global warming.”
    So whether CO2 is damaging the planet is a matter of how people “feel” about it.
    That’s pretty funny. Completely irrelevant, but it is funny.

    Reply
  5. ZZMike Avatar
    ZZMike

    “Ideally, I’d like to see the day where very cheap renewable energy is the norm across the planet.”
    Pebble-bed nuclear reactors – small ones, big enough to power a city, and spread out across the country.
    The failure mode for one of those is that it just shuts down. And if one shuts down, it doesn’t knock down an entire seacoast (as happede some years back – at least twice).
    Unfortunately, as soon as the greenies hear the word “nuclear”, they go nuclear. Or have a cow – which contributes to the CO2 problem….

    Reply
  6. Rick McGinniss Avatar
    Rick McGinniss

    Interesting article in the KC Star tonight about natural gas becoming more of a realistic possibility in addressing this problem:
    http://www.kansascity.com/382/story/1641603.html
    “An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It’s cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.
    It’s natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable.”
    The article goes on to explain how necessity has pushed companies to get creative and figure out ways to get at additional sources of NG.
    I think I read somewhere that free markets often have that effect.

    Reply
  7. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks for the link, Rick.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading