Transcript: Well I think that the Bible is authoritative. I believe it’s infallible and inerrant in the original autographs. It is my basis for life and conduct. And what that means is that if the Bible from Genesis to Revelation says that we’re to be stewards of the earth, then we are to be stewards of the earth. If in Genesis it says that we are to protect and care for it, and yes, exercise dominion over all living things – the birds of the air, the fish of the sea – and exercise a dominion that’s balanced with this kind of stewardship . . . And then it also says in Revelation that God will judge those who destroy the earth. In fact it says in Revelation 11:18 that God will destroy those who destroy the earth. That is a warning. That is a warning to all of those who would say this doesn’t matter. And so for those who have an argument on this issue, I say, “I’m sorry. Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with God, because either His Word says this or it doesn’t, and it does.” So if it says we are to be a steward over all of it, and that we someday have to give it back to Him, and will be held accountable in what shape we give it back to Him . . . therefore if that’s the case, we have no right either to plunder, or pillage, or destroy it, or allow others to do that in our name. And so for those who think, “Well it’s not my duty,” or, “It’s not my responsibility,” or, “I won’t be held accountable.” Au contraire. I say that’s not right. You will be held accountable by God’s word. Because at the end of time, we’ll either be found to be a steward – “Well done my good and faithful servant,” the Lord will say – or He will say otherwise. “Why didn’t you do that which I commanded you to do? What was it? Were there blinkers on your eyes that allowed you to just say, ‘Oh well this is just a Democrat or blue state issue.’ Or ‘It’s the greens, the environmental issue. It’s their duty, not my duty.’” I don’t think God lets us off the hook that way.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Arguably the most famous scientist in America is Edward O. Wilson, and he’s written a book called “Creation” in which he suggests that the world of religion and science together are the most important constituencies in America. And I guess what I would ask Dr. Wilson is this: If we don’t act, what is the result? And if we do act on these issues of climate change, pollution, species extinction, habitat destruction, the spread of human infectious diseases . . . If we do act, what will it mean for human life on earth? And of course the reverse is obvious. If we don’t, what will we face?

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Well the environment has never had “political salience”. It’s never risen above single digits in terms of its political saliency, but it is already. Climate change is considered by some polls to be one of the top tier domestic issues in the ’08 election. And so for those candidates who are – let’s put it this way – climate deniers, I think they face political extinction. And for those that do reach out across aisles, across religious beliefs, across, you see, the cultural divides that exist in America to say that this is something together we can do; that green is the new red, white and blue; and that this generation, my generation, can only be the greatest generation if we are the greenest generation . . . Now that, I say . . . That’s a vision that we can live up to. We can live up to it. So I’m an optimist, absolutely. We don’t have any choice.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Well the decision I made, for example, first and foremost was the means of transportation I use, and we use as a family. And frankly we got rid of our gas guzzling cars and bought hybrids. Because I felt as the head of the household that this was one single way we could begin to make a big change because we are out on the roads. Washington is a . . . well, an “urban heat island” as environmentalists call it – an urban heat island. And the one thing we could do would be to drive hybrids. But we also did other things. We did an energy audit of our house and updated the heating and air conditioning systems to make them the most efficient. We do things like recycling, of course; but that is not the ultimate solution. I say that suggesting evangelicals that recycle is sort of like a Catholic Hail Mary pass. Why? Why? Recycling won’t do it because global warming is a global problem. And yes, there are individual actions we must take to change the way we live. But we cannot change the reality of climate – global warming if you will – without federal legislation. It’s a global problem that requires a global solution, and that means our nation’s governmental leaders must take action to seriously reduce CO2 emissions. And frankly, the United States is 4.5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions. How can you bless the rest of the world if we are its chief emitter of CO2 gases which are producing an impact called the greening effect which is raising temperatures, and melting arctic polar ice caps that result, you see, in devastation not just to those living in the Northern Hemisphere, but to those in the south? So what should we be doing? I think we have to both act individually and collectively as a nation. And I think it’s . . . it’s sad. I think it’s . . . it’s reprehensible that our nation’s leaders have not acted thus far to do, in fact, just what needs to be done, which is to reduce our nation’s consumption, yes, of fossil fuels that emits the highest preponderance of greenhouse gases by any nation on the face of the earth. So we are all both to blame, but we’re also all the solution. So rather than prophesy gloom and doom, I prophesy rather a promise. A promise that comes from God, which is that “If you will bless the rest of the world, I will bless you.” Because the Scriptures themselves say that, “Those who curse you I will curse, and those who bless you I will bless.” And the United States has the opportunity – and particularly the church has an opportunity, you see – to be a blessing to the rest of the world by acting. And so the National Association of Evangelicals even is taking action to green our churches. And if 350,000 houses of worship reduce their energy consumption by just 25 percent, it would be the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. So we all have a responsibility, but the church does too.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript:I don’t say it’s the single most; but I say it’s as pressing an issue as protecting the unborn, or protecting traditional family. It’s . . . it’s surely as equal in our attention and our . . . our concern, and our action as those issues. So I’m not saying it’s the most single important issue. I’m saying amongst the variety of issues that we face today, it’s equal in importance at least. And I let people make their own minds up which is the most important. Because frankly, if you are a Christian living in North Africa impacted by desertification that comes from climate change, there – a Christian in North Africa – you might well say that I believe climate change is more important to me than, for example, the abortion issue. And that’s what millions upon hundreds of millions of evangelicals Christians around the globe do everyday. And you have to choose. And sometimes the threats that come from the environment are greater than the threats that come from, say, an abortionist. And Christians understand that overseas. I think it’s our American myopia that confines our attention to what occurs here in the continental United States at the expense of what (38:17) occurs around the world. And frankly what our people need . . . what evangelicals really need is a Christian world and life view that says what happens in Africa is important not just to African Muslims in Darfur who are victims of genocide; but what happens, for example, in Southeast Asia to those of Hindu faith in Bangladesh for example . . . Potentially a human catastrophe unlike has been visited upon this globe in human history if climate change were, for example, to drive ten and hundreds of millions of Bangladeshis either south of India or north of China. Where would they go if climate change raises the ocean levels? What are we to say to them? Are we to say, “Well those things don’t matter because they don’t impact me”? No, no, no, no. This . . . this is a denial of Christianity to say that these things don’t matter, or that they don’t matter to God. That’s a denial of the faith that we proclaim. That’s how serious this is.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Because there is a concept, even a biblical concept, called co-belligerency; that you can be a cobelligerent with our erstwhile enemies. For example, even on population control or abortion issues, there are people who oppose us on those issues. And yet it’s possible, you see, to be a co-belligerent with them on something else without compromising our integrity. My . . . my integrity is not compromised because I’ve shown that I am both a pro-lifer opposed to abortion. I even have opposed historically population control movements. And so that doesn’t change the fact that I can at the same time say over here they are right. Look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Really. I mean evangelicals can make these distinctions. We’ve done it for decades. For example, on the religious persecution movement for example, we’ve collaborated with those who oppose us on abortion to save babies from being burned in bonfires in Darfur. In other words, we’ve collaborated with people who oppose us on the sanctity of human life, on the definition of marriage to work together to save lives against persecution or genocide. We do that and have done that successfully with eight, nine, 10 major bills before Congress. So we can do this. It’s not impossible. It’s just those who really don’t want to do this that raise that as a bogyman.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Question: Where should climate change rank in the order of evangelical priorities?

Transcript: I just happen to think it’s one of a host of important issues. Are they all important? Yes. You know I believe protecting the family, and protecting the unborn, and yes, even protecting the planet deserves a priority. Because I don’t see what good it does to say we’re going to protect the traditional family, if in the meantime the planet is in peril itself. Does that make sense? I don’t think so. So why shouldn’t climate change . . . Why shouldn’t creation care, God’s command, be just as important? I mean does it deserve a lesser importance because it’s caring for the earth? Well that is a kind of biblical heresy. In history gone by, it was known as gnosticism. It was to separate matter from spirit and say the spirit matters . . . matter itself. The earth doesn’t matter. And that a heresy. It’s biblical heresy. And so I happen to put these priorities at an equal level. I think they’re all important.

Question: What do you say to evangelicals who rank the priorities differently?

Transcript: Yeah by whose definition? Self-appointed leaders who happen to have ministries that are singly focused on those issues, such as protecting the family or the unborn? They say that this is the only priority we should have? Well I happen to believe that the leaders of the nation’s largest evangelical association which I work for, the National Association of Evangelicals, has said in a historic document called “For the Health of the Earth” . . . or “For the Health of the Nation” that all of these issues are important, including caring for the earth. And so I happen to think that the document just mentioned, which says all of the principals enumerated in Scripture are important, is the way to go. I mean to say otherwise is to say, well, some of the Scripture is ordained. Some of it is inspired, and some of it isn’t.

I call that by the way “Dalmatian theology” because it says, “Well the Bible is inspired in spots.” So it’s inspired in spots. It says that we should care for all creatures including the unborn; but it’s not inspired when God says care for the earth and protect it? Well of course that’s wrong. All of it is inspired.

Question: Why are evangelicals split on climate change?

Transcript: It’s hard to know. Historically speaking, the early Christians were affected by a neo-Platonism that divided matter and spirit. So the spirit – the soul – was important; but matter – the body –wasn’t important. Well that because kind of Gnostic heresy. The reformers, the great 16th century reformers . . . Well the earth was just a platform, a place where the great salvation story played out. And then in more recent decades New Age religions and others cast doubt, you see, on the authority of the Scriptures. And so today what explains it? Well a lot of different things; but fundamentally I think Christians need to know you have no excuse. You have no excuse. It’s in the Word of God. And if God says care for it, I would suggest it would be dangerous to do otherwise because He will hold us accountable. So how we’ve gotten into this precarious predicament today where, well, the issue belongs to the greens or to the one party not the other. I think that’s all just a form of human co-op; a form of abnegation of responsibility. A kind of “devil may care attitude” that’s sad. And it will not . . . it will not be tolerated by God.

Question: Where has the evangelical community embraced the issue climate change?

Transcript: Oh it comes in a variety of forms, but look. When the nation’s most influential evangelical leaders, the presidents of 39 colleges, the pastors of our largest mega churches, the heads of the NAE come forward and say in the Evangelical Climate Initiative that this is God’s business to care for the earth, I think that’s a signal moment in history. I’ve even heard the former Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton . . . I’ve heard them say that when the evangelicals came out to speak about the climate change – global warming – that’s when things began to change. Why? Because evangelicals have been the conservative moral custodians of our cultural climate. And when these conservatives say this, then the public begins to pay attention. Now that’s Al Gore and Bill Clinton. And arguably they could take a lot of credit. Al Gore’s movie or whatever. And I’m sure they have played an important role. They absolutely have. That is the movie An Inconvenient Truth. But we, the evangelicals . . . when we spoke on this issue, I think the public began to pay attention.

Question: Could this lead to morally untenable alliances?

Transcript: I don’t know that this is a fear that evangelicals should be afraid of. For example, the late Francis Schaffer who was a theologian and a pop psychologist, and one of the foremost articulators of the modern right to life movement . . . Schaffer was an environmentalist too, and he had no contradiction between caring for the unborn and caring for the earth – saw none and showed, you see, that you could be both. And after all you must be both. Why do I say that? Because it’s not possible for the leaders of the Right to Life movement to say with a straight face that they are pro-life and care about the unborn if they’re willing to tolerate . . . You see mercury poisoning that impacts one out of six babies born in America – six hundred thousand impacted by mercury poisoning that comes from coal burning utility plants. It’s not possible with a straight face to say that you are a pro-life leader and deny that this is occurring and be unwilling to do something about it. If you do that, I would say you’re a hypocrite. If you say you are a pro-life leader, and you fail to recognize and act on this essential truth – that the unborn are impacted by the environment in ways that have consequences for generations – for you to do and say that I think shows nothing less than hypocrisy.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Well I happen to think that as a lifelong Republican, that this party ought to pay attention to science. It ought to pay attention to the science of climate change. It ought to pay attention to the 40 percent, 50 percent of its base that are evangelicals. But most of all it ought to do it because it’s right. And so what do you argue on? Well you could argue on biblical basis. You could argue on political calculation. You could argue on a lot of different levels that this is important. Not the . . . Salvation of the earth itself is a good enough argument for some; but argue it based upon self-interest for Republicans if that’s what it takes. Because if you . . . I say to Republican lawmakers, “If you continue to deny that this is happening and hold up action, I think history will hold you accountable just,” I would say, “as history holds those who oppose Civil Rights accountable” Look, evangelical Christians sat on their hands during the great Civil Rights fight of the 1960s. They did, I think to their shame. And so if climate change is, as I say it is, the Civil Rights issue of the 21st century, I am not going to sit on my hands and do nothing on this Civil Rights issue. Absolutely not. Because history will judge who is right and who was wrong, so do what’s right.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: This is primarily for some in their opposition to climate change, this is primarily about politics. In other words, the Republican leaders believe they have constructed a winning coalition that includes business and evangelicals. And some would call it an unholy alliance in the sense that, well, business Republicans get what they want in this deal; but conservative evangelicals, well what do they get? Nothing. And that to me is a bad deal politically; but an alliance moreover with business, at least the businesses that have heretofore have opposed any action against climate change. Well that is an unholy alliance. It’s wrong. Why? Because it allows business interests to dictate what ought to be, I think, responsible individual actions by Christians to save the world which God gave us. And so I say to my evangelicals, “Be careful.” Why? Because when you die, God is not going to ask you how He created the earth. He’s going to ask, “What did you do with what I created? Did you fulfill your duty to be a steward of the earth?” And if all you can say at the end of that is, “Well, I turned my ________ over to corporate America”, then I think you abnegated God’s challenge . . . His duty to seek and protect the earth.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: I think it’s in part an anti-intellectualism and a suspicion of science. In other words it goes like this. Scientists believe in evolution. Scientists tell us climate change is occurring, so I’m not gonna believe what they say. So it’s a . . . it’s an innate suspicion against science per se. And yet what I’m saying and what others are saying – those of us that signed The Climate Initiative – is that science is our ally. Science enables us to understand what creation is telling us about itself – about itself and about its maker . . . God from our vantage point. And so science can be our ally rather than our enemy; and yet there are tens of millions of evangelicals who don’t see it that way. Now they’re coming on board. Let’s face it. Seventy five percent of evangelicals now believe that climate change is real, that it will impact the poor, and we have to do something about it. So that’s a big change from just two years ago.

Question: What changed their minds?

Transcript: Leaders who speak out. Because if they don’t believe the scientists – I happen to believe you can trust science – but if you don’t believe the scientists, generally speaking, evangelicals will trust their pastors, and leaders of their denominations, and their colleges and universities. And these individuals are the one that have spoken out very clearly. Pastors. Mega church pastors. The largest churches in America now have pastors who believe this and are preaching it. And yet reaching into the pews and gathering the support I think we need in order to pass legislation that will actually reduce CO2 emissions will require that a lot of evangelicals in what are called the “red states” or the Republican states actually persuade their legislators that this is important. And we know that the percentages of, for example, red state Republicans, of which evangelicals are sizable percentages, well they consider the environment a priority. Well about 37 percent. But Democrats in blue states, well they think it’s . . . 68 percent think it’s a priority. So the holdup here politically is that one party – namely the GOP, the Republican Party – which is, let’s face it, heavily influenced by what evangelicals think, and say, and do, they’re the ones that need to hear. And increasingly we’re speaking and persuading these conservative Republicans that they shouldn’t be afraid of climate change as a policy issue, and indeed not to speak from our vantage point as evangelical Christians. For Republican leaders not to speak on this issue is not just a dereliction of their biblical duty; but it’s a violation even of Republican history. A violation of Republican history. Why? Because Teddy Roosevelt, the great conservationist, was a Republican. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, began under Richard Nixon. The Clean Air Act and other environmental bills were passed under George Herbert Walker Bush. So why should Republicans all of a sudden be climate deniers, opposed to environmental action? Well I think that’s a violation of conservative, Republican values. And I happen to be both – a conservative and a Republican – and I think it’s a violation of my values not to take action in this respect on climate change most of all.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Question: What changed your mind about global warming?

Transcript: Well my mindset prior to going to Oxford 2002 Climate Change – that’s the name of the conference I was invited to – was look, there is a debate going on about the science of climate change. I don’t need to get into that. “Scientists dispute this,” I said to myself. I don’t have a dog in that fight. What happened? Well I was presented with the science by not only the world’s most credible scientist. The conclusion of course being that climate change is real. It will impact millions upon millions, and that the science was indisputable. Indisputable. And when confronted in this case by science . . . never mind the Bible. I . . . I thought I knew the bible. But when confronted with climate change, global warming in particular that threatens not just for example a river or lake, but the entire planet, virtually knocked me off my feet. Almost like a John the Baptist conversion in which he fell off a donkey on the road to Damascus. It literally knocked me off my feet and I said, “My God.” I said, “I’ve never seen this before,” the facts as presented. And then to have a fellow Christian, a scientist, one of the most premier scientists, the science advisor moreover to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to say to me, “Richard, if you are persuaded of the science . . .” This is what Sir John _________ said to me . . . “If you’re persuaded of the science, you can’t be quiet.” I knew in my heart he was right. And yet I also knew there would be a price to pay. And so I left Oxford in 2002 persuaded that yes, the science was indisputable; but __________, I would say, about the prospect of speaking out. Because even my closest friends opposed the idea of me doing that.

Question: What evidence convinced you that climate change real?

Transcript: I think it’s the rise in CO2. In other words to go from in 100 years 280 parts per million to 380 part per million within a . . . you know, within a 100 year period. And then to see in the last few decades the rise of CO2 parts per million in the atmosphere rise so precipitously in almost a hockey stick fashion I thought was compelling in itself. But when you look at the combination of factors, not just climate change but what’s occurring to the earth – habitat destruction, species extension, pollution and the spread of human infectious diseases – all of them put together with climate change mean a future for the planet that’s undeniably in peril. In peril. And the idea that we as Christians would sit back and say, “Well I don’t have a dog in that fight,” why it just seemed preposterous to me, and still does – the idea that just speaking out on the threat to the planet would be so controversial still boggles my mind.

Question: How did bring the issue of climate change to the evangelical community?

Transcript: What we began to do was first of all draw leaders together to talk to them about it – talk to them about the biblical responsibility. And so within two years we held an event on the Chesapeake Bay, a fitful place. It’s the largest estuary in the northern hemisphere. So we called together 40 evangelical leaders and asked them to make a commitment – a commitment not just to the biblical idea of discipleship. Discipleship based on a care for the earth, which is God’s command right in Genesis, to care and protect it; but also to seek a consensus on climate change – global warming –amongst themselves, and then to draft a statement. So within two years we had held this kind of a meeting drawing the other 40 leaders with the goal within one additional year of drafting a consensus statement on climate change. It took us a little longer than that. It actually took us a year and a half; but by the spring of ‘06 we released a document called “The Evangelical Climate Initiative” with 86 top evangelical leaders signing on. And did we think we would have a fight on our hands? Yes. We knew we would, because already the opposition was . . . was organizing; and in some cases against me personally, which has proven to still be the case.

Question: What opposition did you face?

Transcript: That there’s no consensus on either the causes nor solution of climate change. And of course the opposite is true. The scientists of the world have concluded that this is a peril to the planet itself and to hundreds of millions of people if we take no action. So there is a consensus not only that this is happening, that it’s human induced . . . The IPCC’s recent report called this “unequivocal”. Human induced climate change is “unequivocal”. And yet people still choose to ignore it, and I think that kind of blasé willingness to ignore the data and the Bible are what, I think, condemn us to a very dire future if we don’t act otherwise.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Question: What should we be asking ourselves?

Transcript: I think what people have to ultimately answer is not a political question, but a spiritual question. And it goes like this. “Can I be a moral human being and not take action about the way I live and relate to planet earth?” Period. “Can I be a moral person and not take action?” And my answer, well, I leave it to people to answer themselves.

Question: Whom would you like to interview, and what would you ask?

Transcript: Arguably the most famous scientist in America is Edward O. Wilson, and he’s written a book called “Creation” in which he suggests that the world of religion and science together are the most important constituencies in America. And I guess what I would ask Dr. Wilson is this: If we don’t act, what is the result? And if we do act on these issues of climate change, pollution, species extinction, habitat destruction, the spread of human infectious diseases . . . If we do act, what will it mean for human life on earth? And of course the reverse is obvious. If we don’t, what will we face?

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Question: What should we be doing as individuals?

Transcript: Well the decision I made, for example, first and foremost was the means of transportation I use, and we use as a family. And frankly we got rid of our gas guzzling cars and bought hybrids. Because I felt as the head of the household that this was one single way we could begin to make a big change because we are out on the roads. Washington is a . . . well, an “urban heat island” as environmentalists call it – an urban heat island. And the one thing we could do would be to drive hybrids. But we also did other things. We did an energy audit of our house and updated the heating and air conditioning systems to make them the most efficient. We do things like recycling, of course; but that is not the ultimate solution. I say that suggesting evangelicals that recycle is sort of like a Catholic Hail Mary pass. Why? Why? Recycling won’t do it because global warming is a global problem. And yes, there are individual actions we must take to change the way we live. But we cannot change the reality of climate – global warming if you will – without federal legislation. It’s a global problem that requires a global solution, and that means our nation’s governmental leaders must take action to seriously reduce CO2 emissions. And frankly, the United States is 4.5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions. How can you bless the rest of the world if we are its chief emitter of CO2 gases which are producing an impact called the greening effect which is raising temperatures, and melting arctic polar ice caps that result, you see, in devastation not just to those living in the Northern Hemisphere, but to those in the south? So what should we be doing? I think we have to both act individually and collectively as a nation. And I think it’s . . . it’s sad. I think it’s . . . it’s reprehensible that our nation’s leaders have not acted thus far to do, in fact, just what needs to be done, which is to reduce our nation’s consumption, yes, of fossil fuels that emits the highest preponderance of greenhouse gases by any nation on the face of the earth. So we are all both to blame, but we’re also all the solution. So rather than prophesy gloom and doom, I prophesy rather a promise. A promise that comes from God, which is that “If you will bless the rest of the world, I will bless you.” Because the Scriptures themselves say that, “Those who curse you I will curse, and those who bless you I will bless.” And the United States has the opportunity – and particularly the church has an opportunity, you see – to be a blessing to the rest of the world by acting. And so the National Association of Evangelicals even is taking action to green our churches. And if 350,000 houses of worship reduce their energy consumption by just 25 percent, it would be the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. So we all have a responsibility, but the church does too.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Question: Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic about the way the world is headed?

Transcript: Oh I am very optimistic. Why? Look. The problem hasn’t been the Democrats, God bless them. I say this as a Republican. The problem has been the Republican Party and the evangelicals constitute between 40 and 50 percent of the Republican conservative base. And when the evangelical leaders say this is a priority – and not just a priority but a high priority – you can believe that we are going to influence our legislators. You’ve already seen this President, George W. Bush, move from being a climate denier to saying it is a global challenge. But ultimately there is not a candidate seeking the White House in ’08 . . . in 2008 who will not be told by the evangelicals that this is important, and what’s your stand on this issue? And so I don’t expect the next President of the United States to be anything but a green candidate.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: I don’t say it’s the single most; but I say it’s as pressing an issue as protecting the unborn, or protecting traditional family. It’s . . . it’s surely as equal in our attention and our . . . our concern, and our action as those issues. So I’m not saying it’s the most single important issue. I’m saying amongst the variety of issues that we face today, it’s equal in importance at least. And I let people make their own minds up which is the most important. Because frankly, if you are a Christian living in North Africa impacted by desertification that comes from climate change, there – a Christian in North Africa – you might well say that I believe climate change is more important to me than, for example, the abortion issue. And that’s what millions upon hundreds of millions of evangelicals Christians around the globe do everyday. And you have to choose. And sometimes the threats that come from the environment are greater than the threats that come from, say, an abortionist. And Christians understand that overseas. I think it’s our American myopia that confines our attention to what occurs here in the continental United States at the expense of what (38:17) occurs around the world. And frankly what our people need . . . what evangelicals really need is a Christian world and life view that says what happens in Africa is important not just to African Muslims in Darfur who are victims of genocide; but what happens, for example, in Southeast Asia to those of Hindu faith in Bangladesh for example . . . Potentially a human catastrophe unlike has been visited upon this globe in human history if climate change were, for example, to drive ten and hundreds of millions of Bangladeshis either south of India or north of China. Where would they go if climate change raises the ocean levels? What are we to say to them? Are we to say, “Well those things don’t matter because they don’t impact me”? No, no, no, no. This . . . this is a denial of Christianity to say that these things don’t matter, or that they don’t matter to God. That’s a denial of the faith that we proclaim. That’s how serious this is.

Question: What should be the big issues of the 2008 presidential election?

Transcript: Well the environment has never had “political salience”. It’s never risen above single digits in terms of its political saliency, but it is already. Climate change is considered by some polls to be one of the top tier domestic issues in the ’08 election. And so for those candidates who are – let’s put it this way – climate deniers, I think they face political extinction. And for those that do reach out across aisles, across religious beliefs, across, you see, the cultural divides that exist in America to say that this is something together we can do; that green is the new red, white and blue; and that this generation, my generation, can only be the greatest generation if we are the greenest generation . . . Now that, I say . . . That’s a vision that we can live up to. We can live up to it. So I’m an optimist, absolutely. We don’t have any choice.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Persuading conservative Republicans, which by and large most evangelicals are, that we cannot ignore this issue. The very fate of the planet is at stake. And for we who are Christians who claim to represent God – hmm, evangelicals have a little bit of that arrogance in themselves, that “I represent the word of God”. And God’s wishes, His will here on earth for us, for all people to essentially capitulate our responsibility to what? Corporate causes? Corporate entities? In other words to deny our own God-given rights and responsibilities to do this? I think it’s a . . . I think it’s a fateful shame if that happens. But I . . . I know it’s not happening. And Christians are rising to the responsibility. And they’re having, by the way, these kind of responsibility moments or whatever you want to call them – conversions to this cause.

Question: Where have you been successful?

Transcript: Oh it comes in a variety of forms, but look. When the nation’s most influential evangelical leaders, the presidents of 39 colleges, the pastors of our largest mega churches, the heads of the NAE come forward and say in the Evangelical Climate Initiative that this is God’s business to care for the earth, I think that’s a signal moment in history. I’ve even heard the former Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton . . . I’ve heard them say that when the evangelicals came out to speak about the climate change – global warming – that’s when things began to change. Why? Because evangelicals have been the conservative moral custodians of our cultural climate. And when these conservatives say this, then the public begins to pay attention. Now that’s Al Gore and Bill Clinton. And arguably they could take a lot of credit. Al Gore’s movie or whatever. And I’m sure they have played an important role. They absolutely have. That is the movie An Inconvenient Truth. But we, the evangelicals . . . when we spoke on this issue, I think the public began to pay attention.

Question: Could this lead to morally untenable alliances?

Transcript: I don’t know that this is a fear that evangelicals should be afraid of. For example, the late Francis Schaffer who was a theologian and a pop psychologist, and one of the foremost articulators of the modern right to life movement . . . Schaffer was an environmentalist too, and he had no contradiction between caring for the unborn and caring for the earth – saw none and showed, you see, that you could be both. And after all you must be both. Why do I say that? Because it’s not possible for the leaders of the Right to Life movement to say with a straight face that they are pro-life and care about the unborn if they’re willing to tolerate . . . You see mercury poisoning that impacts one out of six babies born in America – six hundred thousand impacted by mercury poisoning that comes from coal burning utility plants. It’s not possible with a straight face to say that you are a pro-life leader and deny that this is occurring and be unwilling to do something about it. If you do that, I would say you’re a hypocrite. If you say you are a pro-life leader, and you fail to recognize and act on this essential truth – that the unborn are impacted by the environment in ways that have consequences for generations – for you to do and say that I think shows nothing less than hypocrisy.

Question: How can evangelicals cooperate with scientists they normally disagree with?

Transcript: Because there is a concept, even a biblical concept, called co-belligerency; that you can be a cobelligerent with our erstwhile enemies. For example, even on population control or abortion issues, there are people who oppose us on those issues. And yet it’s possible, you see, to be a co-belligerent with them on something else without compromising our integrity. My . . . my integrity is not compromised because I’ve shown that I am both a pro-lifer opposed to abortion. I even have opposed historically population control movements. And so that doesn’t change the fact that I can at the same time say over here they are right. Look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Really. I mean evangelicals can make these distinctions. We’ve done it for decades. For example, on the religious persecution movement for example, we’ve collaborated with those who oppose us on abortion to save babies from being burned in bonfires in Darfur. In other words, we’ve collaborated with people who oppose us on the sanctity of human life, on the definition of marriage to work together to save lives against persecution or genocide. We do that and have done that successfully with eight, nine, 10 major bills before Congress. So we can do this. It’s not impossible. It’s just those who really don’t want to do this that raise that as a bogyman.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Well I think that the Bible is authoritative. I believe it’s infallible and inerrant in the original autographs. It is my basis for life and conduct. And what that means is that if the Bible from Genesis to Revelation says that we’re to be stewards of the earth, then we are to be stewards of the earth. If in Genesis it says that we are to protect and care for it, and yes, exercise dominion over all living things – the birds of the air, the fish of the sea – and exercise a dominion that’s balanced with this kind of stewardship . . . And then it also says in Revelation that God will judge those who destroy the earth. In fact it says in Revelation 11:18 that God will destroy those who destroy the earth. That is a warning. That is a warning to all of those who would say this doesn’t matter. And so for those who have an argument on this issue, I say, “I’m sorry. Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with God, because either His Word says this or it doesn’t, and it does.” So if it says we are to be a steward over all of it, and that we someday have to give it back to Him, and will be held accountable in what shape we give it back to Him . . . therefore if that’s the case, we have no right either to plunder, or pillage, or destroy it, or allow others to do that in our name. And so for those who think, “Well it’s not my duty,” or, “It’s not my responsibility,” or, “I won’t be held accountable.” Au contraire. I say that’s not right. You will be held accountable by God’s word. Because at the end of time, we’ll either be found to be a steward – “Well done my good and faithful servant,” the Lord will say – or He will say otherwise. “Why didn’t you do that which I commanded you to do? What was it? Were there blinkers on your eyes that allowed you to just say, ‘Oh well this is just a Democrat or blue state issue.’ Or ‘It’s the greens, the environmental issue. It’s their duty, not my duty.’” I don’t think God lets us off the hook that way.

Recorded on: 6/25/07

Transcript: Well my name is Richard Cizik. And I am Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Well they have an old expression that says, “You can take the boy off the farm, but you can never take the farm out of the boy.” Well to a certain extent I’m a reflection of that in the sense that while I’m a creature of the Nation’s Capital for the last 30 years or so, the farm boy still exists. And by that I mean to say that the values I learned about the earth and caring for it, protecting it – actually man, you know, was formed from the dust of the earth – have held true. And so I happen to consider those same farm values, the care for the earth to be essential for what is creation care, which is caring for God’s creation. And so having learned a little bit about this on the farm . . . Actually also man’s vulnerability to climate has, I think, given me an insight into this whole subject I wouldn’t have otherwise.For example I would say this. We raised, among other things, cherries. We had a cherry orchard, and a summer rain can virtually destroy a cherry crop – splits this cherr . . . And so I learned about climate change early on in a cherry orchard.

Question: When did you find religion?

Transcript: Well I did have a conversion as a senior in college – a conversion to Christian faith. Raised on a farm, born into mainline Protestantism, but I’d never been exposed to evangelicalism until my senior year in college. So that was my first conversion. But more recently I believe I’ve had a second conversion to care for creation. And so I happen to believe that many if not millions of Christians consider themselves right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, but they have literally, I think, forgotten God’s command to care and protect the earth. And so I believe they need to have a second conversion. I’ve had one. It’s a conversion to caring for creation. It’s a kind of a responsibility moment where you realize for the very first time that heretofore you never did that. It never even occurred to you that it was important. It went right by you like “this”, as if you had blinkers on your eyes. And I would suggest that tens of millions of Christians in America virtually have blinkers on their eyes that prevent them from seeing both God’s word, as well as the changes that are occurring to the earth around them that are going to make life very, very difficult for tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people around the globe as climate change impacts their lives.

Recorded on: 6/25/07