But in the wake of California's 2001 energy crisis, Green Mountain abandoned its California operations. The 60 churches that had signed on to Bingham's deal were "disgruntled, to say the least," she wrote in her 2009 book, "Love God, Heal Earth."
Bingham also faced some stray voltage from the pews. "I was criticized when I was first preaching for bringing a political issue into the church," she said.
Because environmental concerns like climate change can seem distant and abstract to congregations, most faith leaders instead focus on issues of more immediate personal concern, said sociologist Laurel Kearns from Drew University in New Jersey, who studies religion's role in environmental activism.
"A lot of folks come to their environmental knowledge separate from the church," Kearns added. "Most of us don't think about the environment in relation to our own personal identities."
Bingham decided to broaden and deepen her mission. She extended it to people of all faiths and set out to get individual congregations involved in the nuts and bolts of reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions. There was, she would remind them, a religious connection.
"The exciting thing about it was that every mainstream religious tradition has a mandate that we are the stewards of creation," Bingham said.
'Cool Congregations' and skeptics
She also stressed the temporal rewards of going green. Lured partly by the prospect of saving on their energy bills, IPL churches found they could lower their carbon footprint by replacing old refrigerators, upgrading air conditioning systems and leasing solar arrays. A Texas synagogue replaced its light bulbs with light-emitting diodes, a Unitarian church in New Mexico installed solar panels on its roof, and hundreds of other churches joined Bingham's movement to become "Cool Congregations."
The orthodoxy among some who study climate issues is that, despite their rhetoric, religious leaders haven't done much to energize voters. NPR recently reported on IPL's efforts but raised doubts about religion's clout. The report cited a Pew survey conducted in 2010 in which only 6 percent of respondents said religion's influence was most important in shaping their opinions on environmental protection.
But Randolph Haluza-DeLay, a sociologist at King's University College in Alberta, dismissed the Pew study, saying he believes IPL works "on the ground level," where it is more likely to have an impact. He said it has the potential to "have a lot of influence." But whether it does, or doesn't, he added, is hard to measure.
Bingham bristled when asked about the skepticism that often surrounds her cause: "If I thought there wasn't hope in mobilizing the religious community, I certainly wouldn't have dedicated my life to the effort," she said. "We do our level best to express to people that this is not about politics."
Pews, preachers and prizes
But Bingham has nothing against making surprising political moves herself. Working with Sen. Pavley in California during the 2002 campaign to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, she persuaded pastors from around the state to preach about air pollution.
When Bingham discovered that an Assembly member who was undecided about the bill was a regular churchgoer, she made a phone call to the member's pastor. A few months after A.B. 1493 had passed, the Assembly member -- who had voted in favor of the bill -- approached Pavley.
"He said, 'I don't know how you did it, but how did you get my priest to come visit me one on one in my house?'" Pavley recalled. "Sally Bingham's efforts helped to secure the passage of that bill."
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add Commentwhy am I not suprised that her office is in San Fransisco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive it a break, troll, there are plenty of IPL groups in all sorts of states.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many forms of religion and people should, imo; be free to believe in whatever they wish as long as those beliefs do not impact upon the lives of others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the case of potential climate change you can see various religions (or belief systems) come into play in the discussion of what should be done. Some people believe that God has told humanity to “be fruitful and multiply at the highest rate possible. Others believe that God, or mother earth; wishes us to have a long term sustainable lifestyle where all people on the planet share the planets resources equally.
Many of the positions taken by those who fear a warmer world are very similar to typical religions. People hold beliefs, but their positions are based upon faith and not science, economics or reality. Imo, a religious position should not have ANY credence in government policy. It should not matter if the religion is Christianity, Islam, or the church of global warming. We should do what makes sense based upon facts and data and not a parsons system of beliefs.
So what are you trying to say? It's obvious that environmental awareness is higher in California than in other places. As the state with the highest population, California saw the dangers of environmental destruction earlier than other states. From smog in LA to landfills overflowing into the San Francisco Bay, the idea that the environment could be used as a dumping ground forever was utterly demolished by the glaring truth happening in the Golden State.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result, California enacted tough environmental laws and has kept its per capita energy use basically flat while most of the rest of the country has increased its consumption. And don't regurgitate the myth that it's all due to manufacturing leaving the state. The Midwestern US's manufacturing base has been gutted out much more deeply than California's, but their energy use is still higher. And if you really want to get down to it, "Silicon Valley" has and continues to be one of the largest drivers of economic growth for the whole country. I mean, it was the birthplace of the Internet Boom and now hosts a lot of the companies involved in the mobile platform / social media boom that's going on right now.
I don't know exactly what you were trying to say with your nearly-meaningless comment, but I've seen this stuff too many times to be surprised by the misinformation you're trying to spread.
It is no surprise that the usual trolls and sophists have appeared to bear false witness against their neighbours -- and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
1.The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2."There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
And please bother to look over the 200,000+ scientific papers(!) that come up when you type "Negative Effects of Climate Change" into Google Scholar before you repeat this denier bunkum about climate change being a religion!
Help me out here. I did not read that Sisko was saying climate change is a religion. And please don't slap a label on me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do have to admire her for running counter culture to the zeitgeist of her religion. You can bring 200 good people together, yet - the resulting group can still produce an evil outcome, despite the excellent makeup of the group. The use of catch phrases and one-liners are a warning flag that just such a phenomenon is underway. Of an influential nature, in this phenomenon, and one thing she does understand is, there are three ways to establish immediate gravitas in a discourse, which circumvents those irritating things such as the scientific method, actual unbiased research, normal intellectual integrity and subject competence. Being a celebrity, declaring yourself a skeptic, or taking the mantle of representing god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose three things will trick a certain percentage of the population into affording you immediate credence. However a true skeptic assigns no tenability to such people.
California was one of the first areas of oil production in the USA, and continues to be a major petroleum producing state, with over 3 billion barrels have been extracted. It is not the 'leftie' haven of actors and technology startups that some assume.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen try reading it again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" It should not matter if the religion is Christianity, Islam, or the church of global warming. "
"Many of the positions taken by those who fear a warmer world are very similar to typical religions. "
Sisko said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Many of the positions taken by those who fear a warmer world are very similar to typical religions. People hold beliefs, but their positions are based upon faith and not science, economics or reality."
I never put a label on you. I WILL call people out for silly and biased statements, though.
"yarberry in reply to sault 12:15 PM 2/26/13
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHelp me out here. I did not read that Sisko was saying climate change is a religion."
Sisko: "It should not matter if the religion is Christianity, Islam, or the church of global warming. "
That false equivalence makes as much sense as equating Shinto and Zoroastrianism with the church of quantum electrodynamics.
Why should I fear the process that let me live in Ohio? Without global warming, Ohio would be under a 100 ft. thick ice sheet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do religion and (man made) climate change mix?" Yes, both are more faith than science based.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing scientific and religion mix at all. Nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee my post, #6. I already debunked your denier canard. Well, it wasn't me, actually; it was the world's ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that has confirmed through rigorous peer-review that human GHG emissions are changing the climate, that the effects will be mostly bad and that the more GHGs we release, the warmer it will get, causing the climate disruption we are causing to get worse and worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a difference between natural variability over the course of 1000s of years and unnatural climate disruption caused by humans that causes the same magnitude of change over decades to a century. Please do at least SOME research on this subject before regurgitating fossil fuel propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, see post #6. I'm not going to repost stuff if you don't bother to even read it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.” -Michael Mann, Climategate Email
“We have to offer up [fabricated] scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Enironmental Studies, UCSB
Gaia's high priests wear lab coats, while selling CO2 indulgences, and prophesying doom... IF we don't repent. Techno-babble replaces chanting and bone casting. The DE-industrialization of society our salvation. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince Ms Bingham claims to be an Episcopal Priest, she should be using IPL to to teach and guide her churchgoers the word of God; not as a base for pushing climate change. Or else change the name of the place to reflect
what her imperative really is.
I am hard-pressed to get a visual on the "religious experience" Ms. Bingham conjured up while being handcuffed by an officer of the law. It escapes me how one who professes to be an Episcopal Priest deems it appropriate stewardship in the name of God, to rub shoulders with Senators, aimed towards the goal of getting legislative bills passed; and chumming up with other governmental operatives such as Nichols, the
head honcho at the CA Air Resources Board. It seems as though this lamb has lost her way.
Silicon Valley continues to be one of the largest drivers of economic growth? Really?? It once was the hub of the manufacturing of everything electronic - but it is no more. All the stuff is made in China now, as is evidenced by the plethora of empty buildings that used to house the manufacturing facilities. There are countless industrial neighborhoods that look and feel like ghost towns as you drive through them where the companies are no more - they've been empty for years. I know - I was there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry and sell that one to the folks who lost their
fortunes in the dot.com bust; who are now working out of their homes trying to make ends meet.
One more thing, Sault - your closing statement to Rodestar99 that went like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't know exactly what you were trying to say with your nearly-meaningless comment, but I've seen this stuff too many times to be surprised by the misinformation you're trying to spread."
You've seen what "stuff" too many times? And your accusation that this individual was striving to "spread
misinformation" is really out of left field - what you say makes no sense. Clarify, please; exactly what
"misinformation" you think Rodestar99 was endeavoring to
"spread".
While I've got your attention, although Silicon Valley is the home to the offices of Google, Yahoo, ebay, and others, these companies hardly can be looked upon as being responsible for any continuing economic boom - try getting a job at any of these close-knit, already well-staffed companies - you can't. I don't know where you got your information, but it is not accurate.
Nice set of quotes probably taken out of context or partly fabricated. You do know that words in [brackets] are NOT what the person actually said and have been inserted by SOMEONE writing or transcribing the quote, right? And all those "..."s mean that the speaker's words have been cut up and possibly jumbled around. I can't find the John Holdren quote about "de-develop"-ment outside of right-wing sources either, so its validity is in doubt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo yeah, you're regurgitating a classic smear you probably found on some right-wing website. These quotes taken out of context or are from non-scientists whose words HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE VALIDITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE! It's funny how the peanut gallery around here is all to willing to be suckered by this propaganda.
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to your comment #6- your points are either virtually without relevance to the real issues or generally wrong or overcome by history.
Your 1st two paragraphs discuss the general topic of AGW and not the rate of warming which is the source of any potential concern and are therefore not relevant. The rates of warming referenced since the 19th century .4 C to .8C are not alarming. Warming has not been occurring at a rate of .17C per decade has it? The conclusion- “If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.” is outdated and currently unsupportable based on available data. The upper end of that estimate is what is not supportable. It may warm by 1.4C by 2100 but my response would be “so what”, as that rate of warming is not a major issue.
".4 C to .8C are not alarming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got to be kidding me. This temperature increase is happening 10x faster than ANY change in the climate record.
"It may warm by 1.4C by 2100 but my response would be “so what”, as that rate of warming is not a major issue."
How in the world can you make this statement without any proof? We're now up to 277,000 papers on Google scholar that pop up when you search for "negative climate change effects". The trend since 1970 HAS been +0.17C per decade. Cherry-picking the last 5 or 6 years that have been dominated by La Nina and the deepest solar minima in a century to try and claim that the Earth isn't warming anymore means you don't even know the basic facts concerning climate. Your ignorance and willingness to make totally unsupported statements meakes it all too obvious that you're just parroting propaganda from the fossil fuel noise machine.
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what has happened that has been so negative in the climate since the 19th century when temperatures reportedly rose between .4 and .8? It seems like conditions have actually gotten better during that period
It is interesting to note that there has long been
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa confluence of climate control and religion. The Egyptions based a whole theocracy on the belief that the pharoahs could influence the gods to control weather and the Nile so that they might have good crops.
The Mayans did the same. Almost all ancient religions
revolved around praying to some deity to control the environment "rain god,sun god,moon god,etc."
The beliefs were always used by a few to gain money
and power over the unenlightened.
Perhaps we have not evolved as far as we thought.
Hahahah
Many religious people are deeply concerned for the environment. Empirical science has shown that religious people live longer, are happier, and have more children. Wouldn't it be good evolution for everyone to get religious? Can you prove empirically that the "scientific" way of life has a better outcome than a religious one. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did I say that businesses cannot afford to stay in California? Look, I know all the talking points that get made up by fossil fuel companies, and the ALWAYS dismiss the energy efficiency success of California with some bunkum about how industry has fled the state. Again, America's industrial base has been gutted EVERYWHERE, especially in the Midwest much more than in California. Even so, I'm talking about the CHANGE in per capita energy use since the 1970s, so the differences in regional climate don't matter. Do you honestly not understand how to make valid comparisons?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArctic sea ice volume is down 80%, bark beetles have exploded in number due to heat / drought stress in pine trees and milder winters killing millions of acres of forest, disasters like the 2010 Russian Heat wave or the 2003 European Heat wave or Hurricane Sandy are much worse and much more likely by the higher average temperatures / humidity, coastal Alaskan villages are seeing their fragile coastlines eroded due to the absence of sea ice and will have to relocate, 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat and Glacier National Park may have to change its name within 20 years...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've pointed you to countless scientific papers that paint a clear and alarming picture of the present and future effects of climate disruption. Give them a glance sometime.
Now you're opening a whole new can of worms here. But to make things short and to the point, here's some counterexamples:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Some religions prohibit life-saving treatments such as blood transfusions, sentencing many of their followers to unnecessary early deaths.
- Some religions prohibit the use of contraceptives, increasing the number of unintended pregnancies and the spread of STDs. The unintended pregnancies actually increase the number of abortions, something they are also opposed to.
- Some religions put whole branches of science off-limits. Evolution, Biology, Paleontology, and even the conclusions of Astronomy were once (and continue to be in some cases) heresies that offended some religious leaders.
You see, the "Dark Ages" were about 1000 years where religion had most of the authority and scientific progress stagnated (at least in Europe). It was only when the power of religion began to wane that the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment could get going into full swing. Many of the advancements from Newton onward have saved countless lives and freed people from the drudgery of everyday life (in the Developed countries at least).
You see, the problem is that there can be almost as many religions as there are people. Hardly ANY of the faithful agree with EVERY teaching of their faith, in matters great and small. And those teachings or their relative importance change over time too. While some amount of faith brings some health benefits (mostly due to the Placebo Effect and having a stronger sense of community / support), there was a time not too long ago when that same faith was a-ok with slavery, polygamy, human sacrifice and genocide. Good thing we've started to put childish things away over the last few centuries.
I'm just wondering why there seems to be a closed mind by the scientific community towards religious beliefs. If they are helpful in any way, why not adopt them? They have just as much scientific validity to evolve as scientists. Evolution didn't need any help from scientists for the last billion years, why do they think it needs their help now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, most extremely religious people in the United States do not believe in human induced climate change, human evolution, gay's right to marriage, environmental regulations, or birth control. Nevertheless, I applaud this religious group for their efforts to protect the environment. It is nice to see religion be used for something good for a change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault - what the heck are you talking about? I never said anything whatsoever about temperatures, warming, or the like. Surely you meant that 'reply' for someone else. You sure are defensive & combative to the max, man - lighten up - your blood pressure must be going thru the roof!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoy, have you ever assessed that one wrong - it's abundantly clear he/she is not a "troll". As a matter of fact, simply by virtue of what you said - you fit that description more than anyone else, no?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this