Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Ethics and public perception of climate change: Exploring the Christian voices in
the US public debate
J. Arjan Wardekker a,b,*, Arthur C. Petersen a, Jeroen P. van der Sluijs b
a
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands
b
Department of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The
Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Climate change raises many questions with strong moral and ethical dimensions that are important to
Received 9 March 2009 address in climate-policy formation and international negotiations. Particularly in the United States, the
Received in revised form 13 July 2009 public discussion of these dimensions is strongly influenced by religious groups and leaders. Over the
Accepted 21 July 2009
past few years, many religious groups have taken positions on climate change, highlighting its ethical
dimensions. This paper aims to explore these ethical dimensions in the US public debate in relation to
Keywords: public support for climate policies. It analyzes in particular the Christian voices in the US public debate
Environmental justice
on climate change by typifying the various discourses. Three narratives emerge from this analysis:
Equity
‘conservational stewardship’ (conserving the ‘garden of God’ as it was created), ‘developmental
Descriptive ethics
Religion and environment stewardship’ (turning the wilderness into a garden as it should become) and ‘developmental
Public perception preservation’ (God’s creation is good and changing; progress and preservation should be combined).
Climate policy The different narratives address fundamental ethical questions, dealing with stewardship and social
United States justice, and they provide proxies for public perception of climate change in the US. Policy strategies that
pay careful attention to the effects of climate change and climate policy on the poor – in developing
nations and the US itself – may find support among the US population. Religious framings of climate
change resonate with the electorates of both progressive and conservative politicians and could serve as
bridging devices for bipartisan climate-policy initiatives.
ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

1. Introduction scientific forums as well (e.g. Nisbet, 2006; Kolmes and Butkus,
2007; Nisbet and Mooney, 2007). Also theologians increasingly
In the United States, the public discussion of the moral and reflect on the (religious) challenge of climate change (e.g. McFague,
ethical dimensions of climate change is strongly influenced by 2008).
religious groups and leaders. In February 2006, for instance, a Simultaneously, climate change and climate policy have
group of 86 US evangelical leaders, under the auspices of the become more prominent in the US political debate, often with
Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), challenged the Bush admin- moral and religious-ethical1 connotations. For example, Al Gore
istration on global warming with their ‘‘Evangelical Call to Action’’ notes in his ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth’’ that it is ‘‘deeply unethical’’ to
(ECI, 2006). The document states that climate change is an urgent allow the rise in CO2 emissions to continue (Gore, 2006). The book
issue that will impact the poor most of all, and calls for stringent adds specifically religious discourse to the movie’s general ethical
emission controls. Other religious groups and leaders, in the US and discourse, as does Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture, where he
other countries, have taken similar positions (Wardekker and compares the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
Petersen, 2008). The (religious-) ethical aspects of climate change ‘Fourth Assessment Report’ to a quote from Deuteronomy
are the central theme of their statements. The debate has attracted presenting a choice between life and death (‘‘Therefore, choose
considerable attention in the media, and some mention in life’’) (Gore, 2007). In the State of the Union of January 2007,
President Bush referred to climate change for the first time as a

* Corresponding author at: Department of Science, Technology and Society,

1
Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht The terms ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ are often used synonymously, while others make
University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. a distinction for varying reasons and in different ways. This paper will not attempt
Tel.: +31 30 253 3618; fax: +31 30 253 7601. to expressly segregate the terms, as no distinctions are made within the sources
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.A. Wardekker). studied.

0959-3780 ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.008
 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521 513

serious societal issue, noting that technological breakthroughs Illustratively, the main motivation in the evangelical ‘‘Call to
would allow us to become ‘‘better stewards of the environment’’ Action’’ is the impact of climate change on the poor, particularly in
(Bush, 2007). And in his presidential campaign, Barack Obama developing countries. This developmental frame has strong
wrote: ‘‘My values speak to. . . the expanse of God’s creation that is human-ethical connotations. It involves issues of distributive
warming day by day’’ (Obama, 2008). Religiously inspired justice; how equitable is the distribution of costs (e.g. climate-
discourse seems to play an important role in the US public debate change impacts) and benefits (e.g. economic growth) of emissions,
on climate change. and who is responsible for the problem and for taking policy
This paper analyzes the religious voices in the US public debate action (Jamieson, 1992; Grubb, 1995; Brown et al., 2006a;
on climate change in order to typify the various discourses, Gardiner, 2004, 2006; Singer, 2006)? For instance, Grubb
focusing primarily on the discourse among Christian groups. (1995), Gardiner (2004), and Groenenberg and Van der Sluijs
Jewish groups have been taken into account to a lesser extent. (2005) provide extensive discussions of the ethical aspects of
Christian (and Jewish) traditions play an important role in various approaches to assigning emission-reduction targets.
American public and political life, and in the American societal Other ethical issues regarding climate change include: respon-
and cultural debate (cf. Hunter, 1991; Guth et al., 1995; Layman, sibility for damages, cost to national economies, procedural
1997; Habermas, 2006; Lindsay, 2007). This influence may take the justice (who may participate in policymaking and how?), dealing
form of, for instance, party identification, electoral choices, with uncertainties (who should bear the burden of proof? should
political cues in preaching, lobbying and activism, and public we act despite remaining uncertainties; when and how?),
perception of specific issues. Christian groups have often spoken atmospheric targets, independent responsibilities to act, specific
out on issues that have moral dimensions, and apparently they research approaches (e.g. cost-benefit analysis/discounting), and
consider the environment and climate change to have such policy strategies and new technologies (e.g. geoengineering)
dimensions as well. Our interest in studying Christian voices in the (Jamieson, 1996; Brown et al., 2006a,b; Singer, 2006; Toman,
US public debate is to gain empirical access to how an important 2006; Gardiner, 2007).
segment of the US population perceives climate change and what Complex and uncertain issues such as climate change raise
are considered as the relevant ethical dimensions of climate many questions with strong moral and ethical dimensions that are
change. The public voices from Christian groups can be considered important to address in climate-policy formation and international
as proxies for the views supported by the larger communities. negotiations (Brown, 2003; Brown et al., 2006a; Gardiner, 2006).
As should be expected, there is a large diversity of views on the Such issues cannot be solved by simply calculating an ‘optimal
climate change issue both within and among Christian denomina- solution’. Rather, they invoke fundamental questions on how we
tions. In the US context, particularly the voice of evangelical ought to live and how humans should value and relate to each
leaders is considered to be quite influential among Republicans. A other and non-human nature (cf. Rolston, 2006; Hogue, 2007).
plea for strict climate policy by such leaders may seem remarkable. Religious groups have been at the forefront of public debate on
Evangelicals are thought of as politically conservative, and there ethical issues on many occasions, and should be in a good position
appears to be a strong distrust and alienation among evangelicals to evaluate the linkages between environment, climate change,
towards environmentalism and environmental concerns. They link development, and human behaviour. Considering the large
these to liberalism, ‘new age’-like ideas and nature worship (cf. influence of religion on public life in the United States and the
Sirico, 1997; Harden, 2005; Ekklesia, 2006; Hagerty, 2006; EEN, important ethically charged choices that will need to be made in
2007; Ford, 2008). Interestingly, religious sources that plea for the coming years concerning international climate policy, the
strict environmental policies often reframe the topic to ‘creation views of vocal US Christian groups merit further study. This paper
care’ or ‘environmental/climate stewardship’, avoiding such explores their perceptions and positions in the US public debate on
connotations (Harden, 2005; The Economist, 2007c). Some groups climate change and climate policy, and why they consider these
specifically present themselves as religiously or politically con- issues a religious challenge. Following from that, this paper
servative. Regarding Christian traditions in general, some have presents some possible implications for policymaking, relevant for
argued that the classic ‘dominion’ argument (mankind transcends the United States as well as actors involved in the global climate
and has rightful mastery over nature) and anthropocentrism debate. In the near term, religious voices seem particularly
enhance abuse and destruction of nature (e.g. White, 1967; relevant for assessing the possibilities of bipartisan climate-policy
Greeley, 1993; Guth et al., 1995; Schultz et al., 2000; Trevors and making under the Obama administration.
Saier, 2006). Others have pointed to ‘End Times thinking’
(dispensationalism) as an additional barrier to support for 2. Methodology
environmental policy (Guth et al., 1995).
However, to directly relate religious beliefs to environmental 2.1. Approach
attitudes seems too simplistic. Greeley (1993) and Schultz et al.
(2000) argue that, while studies have found a negative relation Different (social) understandings of the world lead to different
between Christian beliefs and pro-environmental attitudes, this social actions: within a particular worldview, some forms of
relation is often small and may be due to political and moral actions become natural whereas others become unthinkable
conservatism rather than religion itself. Nonetheless, different (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Runhaar et al., 2006). This paper
religious views do seem to be related to what type of concerns analyzes the Christian voices in the US public debate on climate
people hold. For example, Schultz et al. (2000) found that change by means of argumentative discourse analysis (Majone,
respondents expressing more literal beliefs in the Bible scored 1989; Fischer and Forester, 1993; Hajer, 1995, 2005; Jørgensen and
lower on ecocentric environmental concerns, but higher on Phillips, 2002; Runhaar et al., 2006). Argumentative discourse
anthropocentric environmental concerns. Such different bases analysis explores patterns in written or spoken statements and
for environmental concerns could result in different views on the related practices in order to identify the representations of reality
nature of an environmental problem, as well as on the desirability that are employed. For Hajer (1995), the ‘discourse coalitions’ that
of various policy strategies to counter it. form around lines of argumentation (‘storylines’) are meant to
Climate change is an interesting issue in this respect, as it can represent a particular definition of the environmental problem, on
be framed (cf. Nisbet and Mooney, 2007) not only as an which the decision-making critically depends. In this paper, we
environmental problem, but also as a development problem. combine two frameworks to analyze and typify these storylines or
514 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521

problem solving, groups may agree on the existence of a problem

and on policy goals but disagree on the strategies and instruments
required to reach the goal. At the fourth level, outcomes and
fairness, groups can hold different views on what constitutes fair
outcomes. Fairness argumentation focuses typically on public
interest, unexpected societal side effects, and distributive justice.
In this paper, the worldviews will be used to typify the policy
narratives and the value mapping and argumentative analysis
framework will be used to segregate the arguments within these
narratives. The approach chosen here yields a somewhat different
type of results as compared to, for instance, Stone’s (1989) concept
of causal policy stories and Roe’s (1989, 1994) approach of
narrative analysis. Causal policy stories focus on the problem
definition in terms of causal mechanism (empirical) and blame
(normative), while our approach is more extensive. In addition to
causal theories, it examines different lines of reasoning concerning
solutions, as people adhering to the same causal story may come to
different conclusions regarding policy options. Additionally, it
explicitly discusses the ideological and ethical issues that may
underlie a policy controversy, which is of particular importance to
this study. Compared to Roe’s (1989, 1994) approach of narrative
analysis, the present approach examines the arguments,3 where
Roe examines the structural differences of narratives. The latter
can yield interesting insights in the dynamics and power-aspects of
a policy controversy. The approach used in this paper yields
insights in the perceptions, arguments, and positions. In the case
Fig. 1. Worldviews. Source: MNP (2005), modified after Rob Maas in Wardekker and
Van der Sluijs (2006). studied, this information can be more straightforwardly related to
the perceptions within the overall Christian community, as well as
narratives: worldviews, on the one hand, and value mapping and to the secular debate.
argumentative analysis, on the other hand.
The worldview framework employs a quadrant of four ideal- 2.2. Data collection
typical discourses regarding sustainability issues (Fig. 1), devel-
oped by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP, The study started with obtaining a ‘helicopter view’ of the
2005; De Vries, 2006; Petersen et al., 2006; De Vries and Petersen, discourse by examining online news coverage on the topic. After this
2009).2 These worldviews are used as a heuristic framework to initial assessment, the study was broadened to include materials
organize the various opinions on sustainable development, in such as opinion documents, press releases, formal resolutions,
order to assess where the discourses are located within this ideal- informative materials and ‘frequently asked questions’ sections on
typical space. This is a type of framing analysis (cf. Gray, 2003; websites of religious groups, speeches, blogs, and additional online
Nisbet and Mooney, 2007), analogous to analyzing ‘social control newspaper articles. Sources were collected using both Internet
frames’ using Cultural Theory (Gray, 2003). This does not imply searches and snowball sampling. Sources were selected based on
that discourses are simply labelled with a particular worldview. their accessibility, relevance, and coverage of opinions, religious
Individuals and groups often cannot be easily placed within one groups, and topics within the debate. In total, approximately 100
‘box’, and factors other than ideological positions influence documents have been analyzed. These materials provided a
expressed policy preferences (Wardekker and Van der Sluijs, representative sample of the US religious public debate on climate
2006). Rather, discourses are compared to the set of worldviews, change as it is currently taking place in the media and on the Internet.
and the elements they use from various worldviews are used to
structure the debate. The worldviews are used as a soft framework 2.3. Sample
to scan for storylines/narratives in the debate.
Fischer’s (1995; Van der Sluijs et al., 2003) ‘Value Mapping and This study focuses primarily on Christian groups, taking into
Argumentative Analysis’ framework is used to segregate and account Jewish groups to a lesser extent. The Jewish sources
compare the arguments used, and to analyze what things various analyzed presented a discourse that was similar to the Christian
policy actors agree or disagree on. The framework discerns four discourses on the argumentative level, although differences were
levels of possible agreement/disagreement: (1) ideological view, apparent in the symbols and language used. These differences are
(2) problem setting and goal searching, (3) problem solving, and (4) not examined in this paper. Several joint Christian–Jewish opinion
outcomes and fairness. The ideological view is the deepest level documents and coalitions have also been included in the analysis.
where disagreement can occur and can lead to very different views The Christian (and Jewish) groups are politically the most
of whether there is a problem or what it is. Ideological influential in the United States, as noted in the introduction,
argumentation focuses typically on ideology and alternative and therefore their views are relevant for formulating climate
societal orders. On the next level, problem setting and goal policy. Additionally, it became apparent during data gathering that
searching, groups may agree on the existence of a problem, but not these groups are also the most vocal and visible in the US public
on identifying precisely what the problem is, how to formulate it, debate. Internationally, other religions and beliefs, such as Islam
and what the end goal or solution point should be. On the level of and Buddhism, seem fairly active on the topic.4 In the US however,

2 3
Note that these worldviews are inspired by, but not the same as, the worldviews The study assesses what the arguments are, not their scientific validity.
4
used in ‘Cultural Theory’ (e.g., Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983; Dake, 1991; Steg and For overviews on various religions’ perspectives, see e.g. Climate Institute
Sievers, 2000). (2006) on climate change specifically and FORE (2004) on ecology in general.
 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521 515

Table 1
Christian religious discourses in the US climate debate.

Discourse Description Worldviews

Conservational stewardship Creation has been created ‘good’. This ‘garden of God’ should be Global solidarity and caring region
preserved, as it was created, as well as possible. Technology
and development are possible threats
Developmental stewardship We are called to fill and subdue the earth, and turn the Global market and safe region
wilderness into a garden, as it should become. Technology
and development are a necessity for this task
Developmental preservation Creation is ‘good’ and changing; progress and preservation Global market and global solidarity
should be combined. God has granted us the creativity to
find solutions. Technology and development can present
challenges as well as help us in this task

opinion material from other religions was found relatively scarce. beliefs as conservational stewardship, but with the important
A considerable amount of analyzable opinion material was difference that it expresses a more positive portrayal of mankind.
available for US Christian discourse, allowing for data triangulation Although not all sources contain sufficient information to be able
and better coverage of the spread of opinions and arguments. to categorize them into one of the discourses, for each of the
Therefore, the decision was made to limit the study to these discourses, sources can be discerned that can be wholly
groups. Analyzed documents originated from religious groups/ categorized under them. It is found that there is no simple relation
churches, associations and umbrella organizations of such groups, between denominations and the discourses: a large majority of the
religious environmental groups and platforms, and individual denominations represented in our sample feature more than one
leaders. Denominations covered (as self-identified by the sources) discourse and many denominations (e.g., evangelical, catholic and
include: interfaith (joint Christian and Jewish), interfaith/ecume- Jewish) feature all three discourses. In the remainder of this
nical (multiple Christian dominations), Jewish (generic), Reform section, we further typify the three discourses and provide specific
Jewish, Orthodox Jewish, Evangelical (generic), Catholic, Baptist, examples.
Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Unitarian Universalist, Quaker,
Evangelical Lutheran, Reformed, Church of the Brethren, United 3.1. Conservational stewardship
Church of Christ, and Salvation Army. Denominations that could be
identified among signatories of public statements/calls and Core values in the conservational stewardship discourse
participation in organizations that made such statements also relate to preserving creation, of which mankind is a part, and
included: Pentecostal, Orthodox, Mennonite, Church of the (related to this) care for the poor. Core beliefs are that climate
Nazarene, and Swedenborgian. For a complete list of organizations change, its impacts, and human influence on it are large and
and people that were included in the analysis the reader is referred temporally close (often: already occurring). Views on the
to the supplementary material. fragility of nature are usually not made explicit, but are a mix
of considering nature as fragile and as tolerant within limits.
3. Christian religious discourses in the climate debate Discourse on mankind is often negative, framing mankind as
‘culprit’. Climate change is seen as a threat to the well-being of
In the material studied, religious groups presented cases in creation, including the poor.
favour, or against, stricter policies on global warming from a
variety of standpoints, using a variety of arguments. These 3.1.1. Ideological view
arguments span all four of the worldviews summarized in Creation has been created ‘good’. This ‘garden of God’ should
Fig. 1. Aside from more generic reasoning on the suitability and be preserved, as it was created, as well as possible. The
acceptability of various policy strategies, several points emerge in commandment of stewardship entails a ‘‘sacred obligation to
relation to these worldviews. Religious discourse which fits in the preserve and protect the earth in all of its majesty, this garden
‘Safe Region’ worldview typically emphasizes mankind’s right to with which we have been entrusted, for those who will follow’’
use the earth, which was granted as a gift to mankind. Discourse (Stone, 2008). The need to protect nature follows from our
related to the ‘Global Market’ worldview focuses on mankind’s interdependence with nature, and an extension of the command-
duty to develop itself and creation. ‘Global Solidarity’-related ment to love one another as well: ‘‘We must see the whole
discourse deals with the commandment to care for one’s creation as our neighbor.’’ (ABC, 1991) and ‘‘we believe that Jesus
neighbour. And discourse related to the ‘Caring Region’ worldview Christ came as a brother to all created reality’’ (Sisters of St.
focuses on values such as moderation and humility (mankind as Francis, 2008). Some sources focus on development, over-
being only a small part of creation). However, the vast majority of consumption and wasting of resources as a threat to creation;
opinion documents do not express only a single worldview. one author even refers to this as ‘decreation’: ‘‘We are engaged in
Instead, they express viewpoints and arguments from several the swift and systematic decreation of the planet we were born
worldviews. onto. And does God look at our actions and pronounce them
Within the diverse body of Christian opinions on climate good? I doubt it.’’ (McKibben, 1999).
change, three discourse coalitions – henceforth called ‘religious
discourses’ – can be discerned. Each is related to two of the 3.1.2. Problem setting and goal searching
worldviews used in this study (Table 1). Religiously inspired Climate change leads to a destruction of habitats, vanishing of
opponents of strict climate-policy express views that could be species or ecosystems, and decline in biodiversity. These issues
described as ‘developmental stewardship’. Proponents of strict concerning the impacts of climate change on nature underlie the
climate-policy express views of ‘conservational stewardship’ and call for ‘conservational stewardship’. Many sources address a
‘developmental preservation’. Conservational stewardship opposes multitude of threats, for instance: ‘‘From the rapid melting of
developmental stewardship in the worldview graph (Fig. 1). glaciers to the bleaching of coral reefs and from the spread
Developmental conservation expresses many of the same values and of tropical diseases and invasive species to increasing frequency
516 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521

of extreme weather event of all kinds, we know that a virtual 3.2. Developmental stewardship
Pandora’s Box of woes and disasters has been released that is
sure to change life on earth for generations to come.’’ (QEW, Core values in the developmental stewardship discourse reflect a
2007, preface). When the air ‘‘is poisoned and polluted (Isaiah human mission to use creation’s resources to develop the world, and
24:5–6), we and all creatures are harmed’’ (ABC, 1991). ‘‘Like (related to this) care for the poor. Core beliefs are that climate
Adam, we have been warned and cannot plead ignorance’’ (Stone, change, its effects, and human influence on it are limited, and
2008). Vision and strength are needed. (implicitly, but related) temporally distant. Nature is seen as robust.
Discourse on mankind is very positive, framing man as ‘co-creator’.
3.1.3. Problem solving Strict climate policy is seen as a threat to development. An important
While change will be difficult, action is urgent, because implicit assumption – consistent with their core beliefs – is that
impacts are already occurring. ‘‘The first step is the most difficult. climate change will not significantly hamper development.
We must begin to look at the issues. In doing this, we acknowledge
our faith that much can be done. . . .Acknowledge the complexity 3.2.1. Ideological view
of the issues, and that solutions will be both difficult and partial. Mankind’s task is to ‘‘fill and subdue the earth’’ and to ‘‘turn the
Make individual and corporate small steps. One Friend does not wilderness into a garden’’ (Spencer et al., 2005), referring to a more
drive on the first Friday of the month, nor does she invite people to ‘landscaped’ view of this garden as compared with the view of
drive to her. Another is setting up a data base for carpooling.’’ conservational stewardship to keep the garden as it was created by
(Street, 1999). Various options to reduce emissions are available. God. Mankind is placed above nature and nature’s role is to serve
They range from governmental regulations to community action, mankind. While mankind should take care of nature, ‘‘human
technological innovation, adaptation, and behavioural change. beings come first in God’s created order . . .And that primacy must
The suggested solutions are similar to those suggested by be given to human beings and for human betterment. If that means
developmental preservation (cf. below). Opinion documents that other parts of nature take a back seat, well then they take a
usually present fairly generic ideas, such as ‘increasing energy back seat’’ (Land, 2006). Mankind is viewed as a ‘co-creator’ and
efficiency’, ‘energy from renewable sources’, and ‘technologies human development and population growth are considered a
that emit little CO2’. One source, though, notes that ‘‘Any blessing and mission, rather than a threat. God would not have
responses to this crises that focus simply on technological created nature so fragile that mankind could easily destroy it, and
solutions are bound to fail’’ (QEW, 2007, preface). Educational God would not have intended healthy nature and human
documents aimed at their own community mention more specific development to be incompatible: ‘‘Just as good engineers build
options and present ‘tips’ and ‘success stories’ of churches, multiple layers of protection into complex buildings and systems,
individuals and companies. Religious communities take an active so also the wise Creator has built multiple self-protecting and self-
stance. ‘‘In the case of the environment, the church’s leadership is correcting layers into His world’’ and ‘‘The Noahic Covenant
absolutely mandatory. There is no other force left in our society implies God’s continuing preservation of the Earth . . .this ought to
that is able to say: Some things are more important than endless make Christians inherently sceptical of claims that this or that
economic growth’’ (McKibben, 1999). National and regional human action threatens permanent and catastrophic damage to
topical networks and church associations organize public the Earth’’ (Spencer et al., 2005).
campaigns, releasing statements, attracting media attention
and developing commercials, and influencing other actors by 3.2.2. Problem setting and goal searching
lobbying. They also organize workshops and prepare and The leaders that present this discourse often display ‘climate
distribute informational and educational materials on climate sceptical’ views on climate change, arguing that climatic changes
change and energy saving to local churches, so they can educate will be minor and largely due to natural causes, rather than large
themselves and their members. They urge churches and religious and due to human activities (for an overview of ‘sceptical’ climate
leaders to set a good example. Interesting examples include discourse, see e.g. Antilla, 2005; Sudhakara Reddy and Assenza,
national campaigns to replace congregations’ light bulbs with 2009). As far as there is a problem, that problem is a lack of
energy efficient ones, such as ‘How Many Jews Does It Take to development of the poor, not the impacts of climate change.
Change a Light Bulb?’, and religious green energy suppliers/ Developed nations are better able to adapt to climatic changes and
campaigns, such as ‘The Regeneration Project’ and ‘Interfaith weather extremes, and have more money to spend on the
Power and Light’. environment as well. Thus, ‘‘it matters little how well we mean,
if what we do actually harms those we intend to help.’’ (ISA, 2007).
3.1.4. Outcomes and fairness The problem is typically framed as follows: ‘‘Whether or not global
Developed nations should reduce emissions and limit further warming is largely natural, (1) human efforts to stop it are largely
climate change. Few sources related to conservational steward- futile; (2) whatever efforts we undertake to stem our small
ship discuss fairness, however. Their position on, for instance, contributions to it would needlessly divert resources from much
whether (and in what way) developing nations should contribute more beneficial uses; and (3) adaptation strategies for whatever
to limiting climate change is not as clear as in developmental slight warming does occur are much more sensible than costly but
preservation (see below). QEW (2007, article 2) notes that futile prevention strategies.’’ (ISA, 2007).
‘‘Simple justice requires industrial nations, and the U.S. in
particular, to take the first steps to slow global warming. . . .Let us 3.2.3. Problem solving
begin to remove the plank from our own eye so we can see more The best way to cope with climate change, if any occurs at all, is
clearly how to help our neighbors consider the speck of sawdust to decrease vulnerability through economic development, adapta-
in theirs.’’ This seems to imply some responsibility for devel- tion, and technological innovation. ‘‘If the aim is to help the poor,
oping nations in the long run. McKibben (1999) suggests that what matters from the policy point of view is supporting the
developed countries should enable developing countries to development process by which countries acquire greater ability to
develop in a sustainable way: ‘‘And we need to spread those deal with adverse economic, climatic, and social conditions,
technologies abroad, with a giant program of international aid regardless of cause.’’ (Beisner et al., 2006). Richer nations have
and cooperation, so that the developing nations do not follow our more resources to devote to improve environmental quality.
energy path.’’ Therefore sources note that stimulating economic development
 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521 517

would be beneficial for the environment as well. Others are more people of the world can, and must, use our God-given gifts to
positive on the possibility of non-harmful emission-reduction develop innovative strategies to meet the needs of all who
policies: ‘‘Government tax and regulatory policies can foster more currently dwell on this planet without compromising the ability of
rapid emission reductions and air quality improvements by future generations to meet their own needs.’’ (JCPA, 1997).
encouraging research and development’’ and ‘‘By exporting
advanced technologies, developed nations would help developing 3.3.2. Problem setting and goal searching
countries improve their environmental quality and enable their Climate change has strong negative consequences for particu-
people to become wealthier, healthier and safer. As a bonus, global larly the poor, both at home and in developing nations. Impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions would decline significantly.’’ (Spencer climate change on developing nations are seen as morally
et al., 2005). unacceptable, for two reasons. Firstly, the developing nations
are harmed, and receive the most severe impacts, through a
3.2.4. Outcomes and fairness problem that up till now is caused mostly by the developed nations
Drastic steps to prevent/limit further climate change will be very (‘‘do unto others. . .’’). This appeals not only to harming others, but
harmful to the poor, both in the US and in developing countries. ‘‘The even stronger: to ‘the rich’ harming ‘the poor’. An occasional source
Kyoto climate treaty and other ‘solutions’ would do almost nothing adds to this that this harm is done in the process of becoming even
to stabilize greenhouse gases or reduce global warming. However, richer. ‘‘Current North American energy-rich and overly con-
they would send energy prices soaring. In future cold snaps and heat sumptive lifestyles are being subsidized by the poor and by future
waves, thousands could die, because heating and air conditioning generations’’ (RCA, 2008). Secondly, the statements remark that
would become unaffordable for many, especially minorities and the the developing nations are also the most vulnerable, and the least
elderly’’ (Beisner and Lapin, 2004). Opponents of strict climate- able to adapt to climate change. The United States bears a special
policy note that they have the same motive for their perspectives: responsibility: ‘‘Because of the blessings God has bestowed on our
concern for the poor. However, they assert that limiting greenhouse nation and the power it possesses, the United States bears a special
gas emissions would slow economic growth and increase the cost of responsibility in its stewardship of God’s creation to shape
energy, ultimately resulting in increasing prices for other goods and responses that serve the entire human family.’’ (CCCC, 2008).
services, including basic necessities. The wealthy can afford such
increased costs, but the poor cannot – the burden would weigh most 3.3.3. Problem solving
heavily on them. With respect to developing countries, any call for Action on climate change is necessary and urgent, and certainly
strict policy ‘‘asks the poor to give up or at least postpone their claims doable if we make the effort. Deadly impacts are already occurring
to modern technology that is essential for a better future for and decisions we make today will fix the emissions for some time,
themselves and their children’’ (Beisner et al., 2006). This is due to the long life-expectancy of technologies. ‘‘Climate change is
described as a type of ‘eco-imperialism’. ‘‘Over two billion Africans, the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship,
Asians and Latin Americans still do not have electricity, and activists and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen.
tell them they must be content with wind generators, or little solar 1:26–28)’’ (ECI, 2006). The proposed solutions are similar to those
panels on their huts because fossil fuel plants would cause global suggested by conservational stewardship. Politicians and compa-
warming, hydroelectric plants would dam up scenic rivers, and nies are called upon to demonstrate vision and leadership on
nuclear power is simply taboo’’ (Beisner and Lapin, 2004). climate change. Those that do so are commended and referred to as
examples of good practice. With regard to options for govern-
3.3. Developmental preservation mental action, recent initiatives point to ‘market based cost-
effective mechanisms’, such as ‘cap-and-trade’, in particular.
The developmental preservation discourse is similar to the Proposals in Congress for cap-and-trade schemes are supported.
conservational stewardship discourse except for that it holds a Such schemes reduce emissions through ‘‘a business-friendly cap-
much more positive view on mankind. It presents a belief in (God- and-trade program that would spur investments in energy
granted) human ingenuity and technological and entrepreneurial efficiency and renewable energy, making our U.S. economy more
capacity to prevent conflicts between development and preserva- efficient and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of
tion. Climate policy should not hamper developing countries: the energy’’ (EEN, 2005). The connection with energy dependence and
developed countries have the responsibility to take action. Views national security is often made. Technology is seen as an important
on the fragility of nature are not always made explicit, but can be tool. In fact, ‘‘if our country does not invest in the new technologies,
described as considering nature as tolerant within limits. The we are likely to be left in the technological development dust as
approach this discourse takes to stewardship seems akin to a other countries cash in on the boom’’ (Lewis and Carlyle, 2002).
concept such as ‘ecosystem services’, although the term itself is not Developed countries should assist developing nations in develop-
mentioned. As compared with conservational stewardship, devel- ing in a sustainable way (‘authentic development’; USCCB, 2001)
opmental preservation seems much more appealing to political and in adapting to climate change. Some sources offer suggestions
conservatives (while both discourses find support among political for people to personally contribute, such as fuel efficient and
progressives). The recent evangelical initiatives mainly display this hybrid cars, efficient appliances and light bulbs, writing letters to
type of discourse. politicians and business leaders, and influencing companies
through shareholder initiatives. Examples of initiatives set up by
3.3.1. Ideological view religious groups include the ‘‘What Would Jesus Drive?’’ campaign
Creation is ‘good’ and changing; progress and preservation and shareholders initiative ‘‘Interfaith Center on Corporate
should be combined. In this discourse, the value of solidarity comes Responsibility’’.
to the fore. For instance, one source states: ‘‘Catholic teaching calls
us to embrace the common good and the virtue of solidarity. The 3.3.4. Outcomes and fairness
climate is a clear example of a good we hold in common. God Developed nations are responsible for reducing greenhouse gas
embraces all of humanity: our well-being is tied to every other emissions. ‘‘In this situation, the United States has both respon-
person. We have an obligation to respond charitably to those in sibility and opportunity. With 4% of the world’s population, we
need and seek justice for those without a voice.’’ (CCCC, 2008). have contributed 25% of the increased greenhouse gas concentra-
There is a strong focus on ingenuity and progress: ‘‘Together, the tion which causes global warming. Moreover, we uniquely possess
518 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521

technological resources, economic power, and political influence to stewardship are concerned about the impacts of climate change on
facilitate solutions’’ (NRPE, 2004). Climate policy should not inhibit the poor in developing countries and in the United States itself.
the development of developing nations, as ‘‘Developing nations Developmental stewardship is more concerned about the effects of
have a right to economic development that can help lift people out climate policy on these poor. To some extent, these positions could
of dire poverty’’ (USCCB, 2001). Thus, ‘‘In seeking an appropriate be explained by whether groups believe that human-induced
balance between consumption and the equitable use of global climate change is real and significant. However, proponents of
resources, we need to make a distinction between the ‘luxury strict policy also voice concerns regarding the effects of policy on
emissions’ of the rich and the ‘survival emissions’ of the poor. ‘From the poor (most strongly in developmental preservation). Keeping
everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required’ the implications of climate policy on the poor in mind seems to be a
(Luke 12:48)’’ (RCA, 2008). Many sources remark that poverty common issue for all discourses. In addition, at least some sources
results in environmental degradation as well. Few sources discuss in developmental stewardship seem to support development- and
the consequences of climate policy for the poor in the United States technology-oriented approaches to mitigation. Finally, assisting
itself. Of course, this could be related to their positive expectations the poor in adapting to climate change is supported in all
regarding the economic effects of strict climate policy. An discourses, although few sources emphasize it.5
occasional source does suggest supporting the poor in their energy
expenses, for instance by increasing funds for a Low Income Energy 4.2. Timeline and priority
Assistance Program (Lewis and Carlyle, 2002).
Climate change seems to have attracted considerable attention
4. Discussion in the US Christian communities during the past few years.
However, the topic is not new within these communities.
The present study analyzes the Christian voices in the US Statements on climate change used in this study date back to
climate-change debate by examining published sources. This the 1990s. An early example is a resolution by the American Baptist
section reflects on the findings. Firstly, the similarities and Churches USA (ABC, 1991). Evangelicals spoke out on environ-
differences among the observed discourses are outlined. Secondly, mental protection in general (EEN, 1994). More position and
the timeline is discussed. Thirdly, the ways uncertainties are opinion materials appear over the late 1990s and early 2000s.
addressed in the discourses are investigated. Fourthly, it is Knickerbocker (1998) already describes climate change as an
assessed in what respects the religious voices studied differ from important part of theological teaching and activism for a growing
secular voices in the climate-change debate. And fifthly, the number of clergy and congregations. What is remarkable regarding
specific impact of these religious voices on this societal debate and the past few years, however, is the emergence of a strong
on political decision-making is discussed. conservative evangelical climate discourse, with the ‘Call to Action’
in February 2006 (ECI, 2006) as a prominent event. The texts do not
4.1. Comparing the discourses indicate a reason for this timing, but it is probably no coincidence
that the increased attention arose shortly after Hurricane Katrina
The three discourses use strikingly similar concepts and (August 2005). Still, Abbasi (2006) notes that religious commu-
images. All three discourses describe God as being the owner of nities have embraced climate change over varying time frames and
the world, and of nature. They regard mankind as stewards with that this process ‘‘just takes time’’. It is not surprising that it would
the task of tending to ‘‘God’s garden’’. Mankind should have take more time among conservative evangelicals. Prelli and
gratitude for the ‘gift of creation’ and pass it on to future Winters (2009) suggest that evangelical support is likely to
generations. However, the discourses employ very different increase due to an ongoing generational shift. High media coverage
interpretations of these concepts and images. For instance, on climate change during 20066 and onwards (Boykoff, 2007;
conservational stewardship emphasizes that God created the Boykoff and Mansfield, 2009) may have enhanced the success of
earth as ‘good’ and mankind should preserve it in its original state. this new discourse. And, as noted above, the discourse managed to
Developmental stewardship, on the contrary, emphasizes that reframe the topic of climate change in such a way that it is now
mankind should turn the wilderness into a garden, or a ‘garden appealing to religious conservatives.
city’ – implying a much more cultivated/landscaped image of the Survey research indicates that climate change is considered a
garden. The discourses of conservational stewardship and serious problem among US Christians (Pew Forum, 2006), but the
developmental preservation are similar in their views on the weight relative to other issues is also relevant. A majority supports
problem and the goals. Both are ‘green’ religious discourses. strict environmental regulations, even if this would cost jobs or
However, important differences can be found in their portrayal of result in higher prices (Green, 2004, 2008). In terms of voting
mankind and the relationship between man and nature, and their priority, however, the environment ranks well below the economy
perspectives on the solutions. Conservational stewardship seems and terrorism, but, for all but white evangelicals, higher than
to hold much in common with mainstream environmental abortion and much higher than gay marriage (Pew Forum, 2004).
concerns, and even with ‘green romanticism’ (cf. Prelli and Nearly half of US Christians report that their clergy address the
Winters, 2009). Developmental stewardship holds more in environment; slightly less than gay marriage and less than
common with ‘sustainable development’ discourses and presents
a narrative that seems much more appealing to political 5
The reasons for this limited emphasis on adaptation could be rhetorical; sources
conservatives than does conservational stewardship. aim to urge the US to increase emission-reduction efforts (or argue against these).
Three specific ethical themes are at the forefront of the debate: However, other reasons could play a role as well. The World Council of Churches
notes that their current ‘dual focus’ (both mitigation and adaptation) was not
the effects on nature, the implications for future generations
obvious: ‘‘To work on adaptation had been seen as a weakening of resolve on the
(intergenerational equity), and the implications for the poor. They possibilities of mitigation and hence a weakening of the WCC’s solidarity with
can be found in all three discourses. The most prominent issue in victims’’ (Robra, 2006). Robra (2006) notes that conceptualizing the transition to a
recent debates is the implications for the poor. It is emphasized in dual focus required collaboration with religious relief and development agencies,
developmental stewardship and developmental preservation. and that building these relationships ‘‘has not proceeded as quickly nor engaged as
many agencies as had been initially hoped.’’
Conservational stewardship particularly emphasizes effects on 6
Media coverage in 2006 peaked in March (e.g., US release of An Incovenient
nature. Regarding implications for the poor, developmental Truth) and November (e.g., Stern Review, COP12, mid-term Congressional elections,
preservation and – albeit to a lesser extent – conservational prominent state-level actions) (Boykoff, 2007).
 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521 519

abortion, but more than evolution/intelligent design and stem cell 4.5. Impact on societal debate and political decision making
research (Pew Forum, 2006).
While it remains to be seen what effects these religious
4.3. Discourse on uncertainty contributions to the public debate will have on climate policy in
the United States, several clues for their potential influence can be
As noted in the introduction, complex and uncertain issues such found. The recent initiatives are attracting attention in the media
as climate change raise many ethically charged questions. One of and among scientists, corporations, NGOs, etc. Furthermore, the
the key questions here is how to deal with uncertainties. initiatives do not stand alone in their calls for stricter climate
Most opinion documents that plea for stricter climate-policy policy; in fact, the religious initiatives are actively forming
emphasize certainty, rather than address uncertainty. State- coalitions with these other parties. Calls for stricter policy are
ments often start with the claim that there is scientific emerging from many other sectors of society, ranging from state
consensus on human-induced climate change and on its large and city governments and national politics to corporations,
and negative consequences. Interesting exceptions are groups farmers, and ‘security hawks’ (The Economist, 2007a,b). Coalitions
such as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which are formed, including between ‘unlikely’ partners. For instance,
explicitly address uncertainty and connect it to its implications Gunther (2006) reports on joint media campaigns by evangelicals,
(cf. Wardekker et al., 2008). Uncertainty is placed in the context Fortune 500 companies, and the environmental movement. As
of a religious (or religiously inspired) frame: the ‘virtue of such, the religious initiatives should not be seen in isolation, but as
prudence’. ‘‘Prudence is not, as popularly thought, simply a part as a larger societal debate on climate change, which has led to
cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is a domestic pressures on the US government to participate more fully
thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding in international climate policy. In particular, religious environ-
action to achieve a moral good’’ (USCCB, 2001). Pope Benedict mental initiatives seem to be making environmental care more
XVI describes acting prudently as a discursive process: ‘‘being accessible to the conservative side of the political spectrum. Where
committed to making joint decisions after pondering respon- the conventional environmental movement is strongly distrusted
sibly the road to be taken’’ (CCCC, 2008). among evangelicals and conservatives, these church-based initia-
Opponents of strict policy often emphasize uncertainty, arguing tives have reframed climate change from an environmental issue
that a sufficient basis for strict policy is absent, while consequences to a religious one. This new frame is much closer to their
of such policy would be significant. Some sources suggest that it is perceptions and way of life (cf. Nisbet and Mooney, 2007). In fact,
certain that human-induced, large and negative climatic changes religious environmental initiatives seem to take upon themselves
and impacts will not occur. Instead of investing resources to roles similar to those of conventional environmental groups.
prevent uncertain climate change, many opponents of strict Opposition to strict climate policies can also be found among US
climate-policy emphasize the importance of (economic) develop- Christian (and Jewish) groups. While they consider nature
ment. This can be regarded as a ‘human development’ approach to valuable, considerably more weight is given to mankind. This
climate-change adaptation (cf. Dessai and van der Sluijs, 2007). makes supporters of this ‘developmental stewardship’ discourse
To support their claims, both parties refer to scientific reports, particularly unsupportive of policy proposals that are perceived to
institutes, and scientists whom they consider reliable. Occasion- be detrimental to the poor. They may be less opposed to
ally, sources stress the religious background of the latter, for development-oriented proposals.
instance, when scientists are claimed to belong to their group. In To conclude, the Christian voices in the US public debate on
the recent debate, both groups have also actively formed coalitions climate change have added to the societal support for climate-
with scientists. policy efforts. Progressive as well as conservative politicians can
find support among their electorate for policy proposals aiming to
4.4. Religious versus secular voices limit climate change. Furthermore, while different worldviews can
be distinguished among the Christian groups, common imagery
From the analysis of ‘religious’ discourses in the climate-change and concerns are present as well. Potentially, these similarities
debate identified in this paper, we can conclude that, particularly could serve as bridging devices for bipartisan policy initiatives.
when expressing ideological views, religious imagery is dominant
in these discourses. The religious discourses add a deeper 5. Conclusion
dimension to the public debate on climate change, and seem to
resonate with large audiences. This is what makes religious Over the past few years, the issue of climate change has
discourse powerful and an important object for study in the received an increasing amount of attention within religious
context of climate-policy analysis. communities in the United States and in the rest of the world.
Still, many of the arguments put forward in the religious Recent initiatives have attracted considerable attention in the
discourses figure in secular discourses as well: these arguments media. Calls to politics to take more notice of the issue originate
can be considered as generic (i.e. not specifically religious) from a multitude of religious movements. In the United States,
ethical arguments. In most of the documents analyzed, it indeed Christian groups play a prominent role. Some Christian opposition
appears difficult to distinguish religious from secular lines of to these initiatives exists as well. Several US groups have organized
reasoning. counter-initiatives, criticizing religiously inspired advocacy of
From a deliberative democracy viewpoint, the question thus strict climate policy.
becomes relevant whether the political arguments put forward in Within the diverse body of opinions and arguments that various
the religious discourses are either inspired (considered allowed) or Christian (and Jewish) groups put forth, three narratives (‘religious
justified (considered problematic) by religion (cf. Shields, 2007). discourses’) can be discerned: ‘conservational stewardship’,
From this viewpoint, religious arguments should not be allowed to ‘developmental stewardship’, and ‘developmental preservation’.
carry additional force in the (secular) debate that should remain Each of these discourses presents a consistent storyline, using
pluralistic. This becomes even more pressing when dealing with similar concepts, images and motives, but holding different
absolutist (religious) positions: sometimes such positions are not interpretations of these.
allowed to enter the discourse, for those who put forth such Conservational stewardship holds that God created the earth as
opinions are not willing to criticize their own positions. ‘good’, and that this ‘garden of God’ should be preserved as it was
520 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521

created. Mankind is part of nature and has the sacred task to References
protect the earth. Climate change threatens creation and is
Abbasi, D.R., 2006. Americans and Climate Change: Closing the Gap Between Science
therefore morally unacceptable. Change will be difficult, but it is and Action. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, New Haven.
urgent and each person and company should take small steps ABC, 1991. American Baptist Resolution on Global Warming. American Baptist
towards reaching this common goal. Religious communities take Churches in the USA, Valley Forge.
Antilla, L., 2005. Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of
an active role, by setting an example, educating their members and climate change. Global Environmental Change 15, 338–352.
lobbying. Beisner, E.C., Lapin, D., 2004. Moralizing Environmentalist Dogma is Immoral: Deadly
Developmental stewardship places nature in a more serving Consequences of Green Policies Often Ignored. Canada Free Press. URL: http://
www.canadafreepress.com/2004/caruba102904.htm (October 29, 2004).
position to mankind. Rather than preserving creation as it was Beisner, E.C., Driessen, P.K., McKitrick, R., Spencer, R.W., 2006. A Call to Truth,
created, mankind should turn the wilderness into a ‘garden’, as it Prudence and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global
should become. Strict climate policies will inhibit mankind from Warming. Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Burke.
Boykoff, M.T., 2007. Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic
fulfilling this role, from developing and from reducing its burdens
climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006.
(poverty, disease, malnutrition, etc.). The poor, in the US and in Area 39 (4), 470–481.
developing countries, would have to bear the heaviest burdens of Boykoff, M.T., Mansfield, M., 2009. 2004–2009 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate
such policies. Rather, economic and technological development Change or Global Warming. Environmental Change Institute, University of
Oxford. URL: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/mediacoverage.php
should be promoted, thus enhancing societies’ capability to deal (consulted July 2009).
with environmental and other problems. Brown, D.A., 2003. The importance of expressly examining global warming policy
Developmental stewardship considers creation to be ‘good’ issues through an ethical prism. Global Environmental Change 13, 229–234.
Brown, D., Lemons, J., Tuana, N., 2006a. The importance of expressly integrating
and changing. Progress and preservation should be combined, and ethical analysis into climate change policy formation. Climate Policy 5, 549–552.
God has granted mankind the creativity to find solutions. The poor Brown, D., Tuana, N., Averill, M., Baer, P., Born, R., Lessa Brandão, C.E., Frodeman, R.,
will face the most severe impacts of a problem that the rich have Hogenhuis, C., Heyd, T., Lemons, J., McKinstry, R., Lutes, M., Müller, B., Miguez,
J.D.G., Munasinghe, M., Muylaert de Aurojo, M.S., Nobre, C., Ott, K., Paavola, J., de
created, while they are the most vulnerable and least able to Campos, C.P., Rosa, L.P., Rosales, J., Rose, A., Wells, E., Westra, L., 2006b. White
adapt. Developed nations have the moral duty, as well as the Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change. Rock Ethics Institute, Penn
opportunity, to prevent this. Various options are proposed, State University, University Park PA.
Bush, G.W., 2007. State of the Union 2007. United States Capitol, Washington, DC.
ranging from regulations to technology, adaptation and beha-
CCCC, 2008. The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change. The Catholic Coalition on
vioural change. Recent initiatives favour cap-and-trade schemes Climate Change (CCCC), Cheverly. URL: http://www.catholicsandclimate-
in particular. change.org/pdf/Flyer_new.pdf (consulted September, 2008).
Climate Institute, 2006. Common Belief: Australia’s Faith Communities on Climate
The religious voices in the US public debate on climate change
Change. The Climate Institute, Sidney.
emphasize the moral dimensions of the issue. Three ethical themes Dake, K., 1991. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk. Journal of Cross-
are at the forefront of the debate: the effects of human-induced Cultural Psychology 22 (1), 61–82.
climate change on nature (creation care; environmental/climate Dessai, S., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2007. Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation—A
Scoping Study. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innova-
stewardship), the implications for future generations (care for tion, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
one’s children; intergenerational equity), and the implications for De Vries, B.J.M., 2006. Scenarios: guidance for an uncertain and complex world? In:
the poor (environmental justice; interregional equity among other Costanza, R., Graumlich, L.J., Steffen, W. (Eds.), Sustainability or Collapse? An
Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, 96th Dahlem Workshop
things). Many recent initiatives stress the latter. Observing the Report. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 378–398.
religious discourses, a robust policy strategy (regarding support in De Vries, B.J.M., Petersen, A.C., 2009. Conceptualizing sustainable development: an
US Christian communities) would have to pay careful attention to assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and sce-
narios. Ecological Economics 68 (4), 1006–1019.
the effects of both climate change and climate policy on the poor in Douglas, M.T., Wildavsky, A.B., 1983. Risk and Culture: an Essay on the Selection of
developing countries and the United States itself. Religious groups Technical and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley
have added to the basis of societal support for both progressive and and Los Angeles.
ECI, 2006. Climate Change—An Evangelical Call to Action. Evangelical Climate
conservative politicians and the religious framings of climate
Initiative, Dallas. URL: http://christiansandclimate.org/learn/call-to-action/
change could contribute to bipartisan climate-policy efforts. (consulted December 2008).
EEN, 1994. On the Care of Creation: An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of
Creation. Evangelical Environmental Network, Wynnewood. URL: http://
Acknowledgements
www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php (consulted July 2009).
EEN, 2005. Global Warming Briefing for Evangelical Leaders. Evangelical Environ-
We would like to thank the working group ‘‘World’’ and the mental Network, Wynnewood. URL: http://www.creationcare.org/files/glo-
steering/review committee of the STT (Netherlands Study Centre bal_warming_briefing.pdf.
EEN, 2007. Frequently Asked Questions. Evangelical Environmental Network, Wyn-
for Technology Trends) project ‘‘Technology and Religion’’, newood. URL: http://www.creationcare.org/responses/faq.php (consulted Feb-
particularly Michiel van Well, Christiaan Hogenhuis, Martijntje ruary 2007).
Smits, Jozef Keulartz, and Wiebe Bijker, for their useful suggestions Ekklesia, 2006. Spotlight to fall on evangelical divisions over climate change.
Ekklesia News Brief. URL: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndica-
and cooperation. The working group, consisting of people from tion/article_06107is_god_green.shtml (7 October 2006).
science and society working on similar issues, provided a platform Fischer, F., 1995. Evaluating Public Policy. Nelson-Hall, Chicago.
to reflect on the methodological approach and results throughout Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and
Planning. Duke University Press, Durham.
the study. Furthermore, we would like to thank Astrid Bräuer for Ford, J.M., 2008. The role of culture in climate change policy making: Appealing to
creating Fig. 1, and Mark Brown, Paul Sollie, Dick Nagelhout, Peter universal motivators to address a universal crisis. In: Carvalho, A. (Ed.), Com-
Janssen, Anton van der Giessen, participants at the international municating Climate Change: Discourses, Mediations and Perceptions. Centro de
Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade. Universidade do Minho, Braga.
conference ‘‘Communicating Climate Change: Discourses, Media-
FORE, 2004. Forum on Religion and Ecology. Harvard University Center for the
tions and Perceptions’’ (University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, Environment, Lewisburg. URL: http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/
2007), and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments main.html.
Gardiner, S.M., 2004. Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114, 555–600.
and suggestions.
Gardiner, S.M., 2006. A perfect moral storm: climate change intergenerational
ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values 15, 397–413.
Gardiner, S.M., 2007. Is geoengineering the ‘‘Lesser Evil’’? Paper presented at the
Appendix A. Supplementary data conference ‘‘Ethics and Climate Change’’, University of Washington, Washing-
ton, DC, 3–4 May 2007. Available at: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/
cws/article/opinion/27600.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in Gore, A., 2006. An Inconvenient Truth. Bloomsbury Publishing, London (Book) and
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.008. Paramount Classics, Hollywood (Movie).
 J.A. Wardekker et al. / Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 512–521 521

Gore, A., 2007. The Nobel Lecture given by The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2007, Al Petersen, A.C., Aalbers, T.G., Van Egmond, N.D., Eickhout, B., Farla, J.C.M., Hane-
Gore (Oslo, December 10, 2007). The Nobel Foundation, Oslo. maaijer, A.H., Van den Heiligenberg, H.A.R.M., Heuberger, P.S.C., Janssen, P.H.M.,
Gray, B., 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In: Lewicki, R.J., Gray, B., Elliott, Maas, R.J.M., Melse, J.M., Nagelhout, D., Visser, H., De Vries, H.J.M., Van Zeijts, H.,
M. (Eds.), Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and 2006. Methoderapport Duurzaamheidsverkenning. Report No. 550031001.
Cases. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 11–34. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven.
Greeley, A., 1993. Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Pew Forum, 2004. Religion and the Environment: Polls Show Strong Backing for
Scientific Study of Religion 32, 19–28. Environmental Protection Across Religious Groups. The Pew Forum on Religion
Green, J.C., 2004. The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A & Public Life, Washington, DC. URL: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=121.
Baseline for 2004. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Washington, DC. Pew Forum, 2006. Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics. The
URL: http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and The Pew Research Center for the People
Green, J.C., 2008. Fifth National Survey of Religion and Politics: A Baseline for the & The Press, Washington, DC. URL: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=153.
2008 Presidential Election. Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Prelli, L.J., Winters, T.S., 2009. Rhetorical features of green evangelicalism. Environ-
Akron, Akron. URL: http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/docs/Blissreligionreport.pdf. mental Communication 3 (2), 224–243.
Groenenberg, H., Van der Sluijs, J.P., 2005. Valueloading and uncertainty in a sector- QEW, 2007. Global Climate Change. Quaker Earthcare Witness, Burlington. URL:
based differentiation scheme for emission allowances. Climatic Change 71 (1), http://www.quakerearthcare.org/InterestGroups/OtherAreasBeingExplored/
75–115. ClimateChange/ (consulted April 2007).
Grubb, M., 1995. Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on RCA, 2008. Climate Change Update by the Commission on Christian Action.
climate change. International Affairs 71, 463–496. Reformed Church in America, New York. URL: http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?-
Gunther, M., 2006. Strange Bedfellows—Evangelical Christians, FORTUNE 500 Execs pid=1616 (consulted December 2008).
and Environmentalists Band Together to Curb Global Warming. CNN.com/ Robra, M. (Ed.), 2006. Climate Change. World Council of Churches, Geneva. URL:
FORTUNE. URL: http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/08/news/pluggedin_fortune/ http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/pa-booklet-climate1.pdf.
?cnn=yes (8 February 2006). Roe, E.M., 1989. Narrative analysis for the policy analyst: a case study of the 1980–
Guth, J.L., Green, J.C., Kellstedt, L.A., Smidt, C.E., 1995. Faith and the environment: 1982 Medfly controversy in California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-
religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of ment 8 (2), 251–274.
Political Science 39, 364–382. Roe, E.M., 1994. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Duke University
Habermas, J., 2006. Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy 14 Press, Durham.
(1), 1–25. Rolston III, H., 2006. Caring for nature: what science and economics can’t teach us
Hagerty, B.B., 2006. Evangelical leaders urge action on climate change. National but religion can. Environmental Values 15, 307–313.
Public Radio. URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor- Runhaar, H.A.C., Dieperink, C., Driessen, P.P.J., 2006. Policy analysis for sustainable
yId=5194527 (8 February 2006). development: the toolbox for the environmental social scientist. International
Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Moderniza- Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7 (1), 34–56.
tion and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schultz, P.W., Zelezny, L., Dalrymple, N.J., 2000. A multinational perspective on the
Hajer, M.A., 2005. Coalitions practices and meaning in environmental politics: from relation between judeo-christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environ-
acid rain to BSE. In: Howard, D.R., Torfing, J. (Eds.), Discourse Theory in mental concern. Environment and Behavior 32, 576–591.
European Politics. Palgrave, London, pp. 297–315. Shields, J.A., 2007. Between passion and deliberation: the Christian right and
Harden, B., 6 February 2005. The greening of evangelicals—Christian right turns, democratic ideals. Political Science Quarterly 122 (1), 89–113.
sometimes warily, to environmentalism. Washington Post. Singer, P., 2006. Ethics and climate change: a commentary on MacCracken. Toman
Hogue, M.S., 2007. Global warming and religious stick fighting. Cross Currents 57 and Gardiner. Environmental Values 15 (3), 415–422.
(1), 116–121. Sirico, R.A., 23 November 1997. The new spirituality. The New York Times Magazine.
Hunter, J.D., 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Basic Books, New Sisters of St. Francis, 2008. Environmental Initiatives. Including Subarticles. The
York. Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, Aston. URL: http://www.osfphila.org/
ISA, 2007. An Open Letter to the Signers of ‘‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to justice_peace/eco (consulted December 2008).
Action’’ and Others Concerned About Global Warming. Interfaith Stewardship Spencer, R.W., Driessen, P.K., Beisner, E.C., 2005. An Examination of the Scientific
Alliance, Burke. URL: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/OpenLet- Ethical and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy. Interfaith Stew-
ter.pdf (consulted May 2007). ardship Alliance, Burke.
Jamieson, D., 1992. Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Science, Technology & Steg, L., Sievers, I., 2000. Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environ-
Human Values 17 (2), 139–152. mental risks. Environment and Behavior 32 (2), 250–269.
Jamieson, D., 1996. Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change 33, 323– Stone, D.A., 1989. Causal stories and the formulation of policy agendas. Political
336. Science Quarterly 104 (2), 281–300.
JCPA, 1997. Confronting the Challenge of Climate Change. Jewish Council for Public Stone, W.G., 2008. A Jewish response to climate change. In: MacCracken, M.C.,Moore,
Affairs, Washington, DC. URL: http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/environ- F., Topping, J.C. (Eds.), Sudden and Disruptive Climate Change: Exploring the Real
ment/resolutions/climate_change-10-27-97.html. Risks and How We Can Avoid Them. Earthscan, London, pp. 260–262.
Jørgensen, M., Phillips, L., 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Sage, Street, K., 1999. Why should friends be concerned about energy? Friends Bulletin.
London. URL: http://www.quaker.org/fep/whyenergy.html (November 1999).
Kolmes, S.A., Butkus, R.A., 2007. Science, religion, and climate change. Science 316, Sudhakara Reddy, B., Assenza, G.B., 2009. The great climate debate. Energy Policy
540–542. 37, 2997–3008.
Knickerbocker, B., 1998. Worried churches chime in on global-warming debate. The Economist, 2007a. Climate change—the greening of America. The Economist 25
Christian Science Monitor 90 (190), 3 25 August 1998. (January).
Land, R.D., 2006. Quoted in Hagerty. The Economist, 2007b. Green America—waking up and catching up. The Economist
Layman, G.C., 1997. Religion and political behavior in the United States: the impact 25 (January).
of beliefs, affiliations, and commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion The Economist, 2007c. Religion and the environment: a cross of green. The Econ-
Quarterly 61, 288–316. omist 1 (December).
Lewis, S., Carlyle, K., 2002. The dark side of our dependence on fossil fuels: time for Toman, M., 2006. Values in the economics of climate change. Environmental Values
quakers to take a stand. Quaker Eco-Bulletin 2 (March/April (2)). Reprinted in 15, 365–379.
part at: http://www.quakerearthcare.org/InterestGroups/OtherAreasBeingEx- Trevors, J.T., Saier, M.H., 2006. our common biosphere: climate change, wars,
plored/ClimateChange/ClimateChange3.htm. religion and microbes. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 171, 1–3.
Lindsay, D.M., 2007. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the USCCB, 2001. Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the
American Elite. Oxford University Press, New York. Common Good. US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. URL:
Majone, G., 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Yale http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml.
University Press, New Haven. Van der Sluijs, J.P., Risbey, J.S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J.R., Funtowicz, S.O., Corral
McFague, S., 2008. A New Climate for Theology: God, the World and Global Quintana, S., Guimarães Pereira, Â., De Marchi, B., Petersen, A.C., Janssen, P.H.M.,
Warming. Fortress Press, Minneapolis. Hoppe, R., Huijs, S.W.F., 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment
McKibben, B., 1999. Climate change and the unraveling of creation. Christian and Communication: Detailed Guidance. Utrecht University and RIVM/MNP,
Century 116 (34), 1196–1199. Utrecht.
MNP, 2005. Quality and the Future: Sustainability Outlook, Summary. Report No. Wardekker, J.A., Petersen, A.C., 2008. Religieuze posities in het klimaatdebat in de
500013010. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven. VS. In: van Well, M.D.J. (Ed.),Deus et Machina, De verwevenheid van technologie
Nisbet, M.C., 8 February 2006. Evangelicals: moral urgency of climate change. en religie. Netherland Study Centre for Technology Trends (STT), The Hague.
Framing Science Blog. Wardekker, J.A., Van der Sluijs, J.P., 2006. Wereldbeelden en Controversen rond
Nisbet, M.C., Mooney, C., 2007. Framing science. Science 316, 56. Duurzaamheid. Report No. NWS-E-2006-191. Department of Science, Technol-
NRPE, 2004. Earth’s Climate Embraces Us All—A Plea from Religion and Science for ogy, and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Action on Global Climate Change. National Religious Partnership for the Wardekker, J.A., Van der Sluijs, J.P., Janssen, P.H.M., Kloprogge, P., Petersen, A.C.,
Environment (NRPE), Amherst, MA. URL: http://www.nrpe.org/issues/i_air/ 2008. Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views
air_interfaith01.htm. from the Dutch science–policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy
Obama, B., 2008. Changing hearts and minds. Time. URL: http://www.time.com/ 11 (7), 627–641.
time/nation/article/0,8599,1830148-2,00.html (7 August 2008). White Jr, L., 1967. The historic roots of our ecological crisis. Science 55, 1203–1207.