Evangelical Environmental Group Funded By Pro-Abort, Pro-Homosexual Foundation
In February 2006, the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) issued a statement urging Congress to enact legislation dealing with carbon dioxide emissions as a solution to the alleged effects of global warming on the planet.The EEN is headed by Rev. Jim Ball and received funding from several foundations. TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon debated Ball on “Fox & Friends” on February 9 and pointed out that more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence that man-made emissions have caused catastrophic warming of the planet. In February 2006, the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) issued a statement urging Congress to enact legislation dealing with carbon dioxide emissions as a solution to the alleged effects of global warming on the planet.
The EEN is headed by Rev. Jim Ball and received funding from several foundations. TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon debated Ball on “Fox & Friends” on February 9 and pointed out that more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence that man-made emissions have caused catastrophic warming of the planet. TVC is part of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and Rev. Sheldon and other Christian leaders were instrumental in convincing the National Association of Evangelicals not to sign the EEN’s statement on global warming.
The Evangelical Environmental Network’s statement, “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call To Action” was funded by several foundations, including the Hewlett Foundation and Rockefeller Brother’s Fund. It was signed by 86 prominent Christian leaders.
Why would an evangelical group take money from foundations that fund pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-one world government and pro-one world religion efforts?
The Hewlett Foundation provided $600,000 to the International Planned Parenthood Foundation in 2001 to fund “sexual and reproductive health services to adolescents in Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru.” In addition, the Hewlett Foundation has contributed $2 million to the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) during the past three years. The CRR is currently involved in a lawsuit in Kansas against the Attorney General. The CRR wants to protect abortion clinics from having to reveal that underage girls have been victims of statutory rape. It is also pushing to have the age of consent law eliminated in Kansas.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund contributes money to Greenpeace, a radical leftist environmental group and to the U.N. Millennium Peace Summit. This summit has called upon the world’s religions to support the United Nation’s “peace” aims, including a Charter for Global Democracy. This charter has been described as a new “Ten Commandments” for the world.
The U.N. peace summit was organized by the United Religions Initiative (URI) and other “religious” groups. The URI supports abortion, explicit sex education, homosexual marriage and population control.
Evangelical Environmental Network’s Goals Are Wrong
The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance is a coalition of conservative Christian leaders, scientists, academics, and public policy experts. The ISA is also concerned about the environment, but is basing its efforts on sound environmental science, not on the questionable theories about global warming put forth by radical environmentalists.
The Evangelical Environmental Network’s “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action” asserts that “Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence gathered since 1995 has only strengthened this conclusion.”
The statement also claims: “Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”
It asks that Congress “... pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program.”
The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, however, disputes the basic premise of this document.
According to the ISA document, “An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy,” there is no consensus among scientists about the nature or extent of global warming due to human activities.
Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Writing in the ISA document, Dr. Spencer says: “The fact is, we really do not know how much of the current warming is natural and how much is manmade. ... from an observational perspective, it appears that the Earth is indeed experiencing a period of unusual warmth, But because of poorly understood natural climate fluctuations, it is difficult to know how unusual this is or how much of this warmth is man made.”
Dr. Spencer says that the earth may very well benefit from modest global warming. He observes: “The largest impact could be in agriculture” by increasing agricultural productivity due to increased fertilization of crops by the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Much research has been performed into the combined effects of extra warmth and extra CO2 on various kinds of plants, with the bulk of the results showing net benefits to plant health and growth.”
Dr. Spencer concludes with these thoughts: “We cannot say for certain how much the planet may be warming, how much is due to human activities versus natural cycles, or whether these changes in global temperature would be mostly good or mostly bad for the majority of people.”
Another premise of the Evangelical Environmental Network is also questioned by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance document on climate change policy. This is the assertion that “The consequences of global warming will ... hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected first are in the poorest regions of the world. Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”
The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance notes that the Kyoto Protocol, which is an environmental treaty allegedly designed to reduce worldwide pollution, is actually creating suffering for the poor of the world. How? It does so by trying to reduce energy consumption and pollution by rationing energy use or by increasing the prices of energy.
According to the ISA, “By making energy less reliable, affordable and accessible, they drive up the costs of virtually every activity and consumer product, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose especially harmful effects on the Earth’s poorest people.”
The Kyoto Protocol, if signed by the United States, could directly impact poor people in Third World nations who depend upon exports. “Because the United States’ powerful economic engine drives nearly 25% of global trade, poor countries that depend on experts would lose opportunities and be forced to close factories, lay off workers, and postpone social, economic, health and environmental improvement projects.”
The ISA notes that more than two billion people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America do not have electricity and that because of the lack of electricity, four million infants die each year from smoke-related diseases from home-made fires to warm homes and cook food.
Environmentalists oppose coal and gas-fired electrical generation for fear of global warming; they oppose hydroelectric plants from damming rivers, and oppose nuclear power because of fears over radioactive waste. Hollywood actor Ed Begley travels to Africa to promote the use of solar panels for villagers, yet one solar panel costs $1500—far too much money for any Ugandan villager.
In short, environmentalists are discouraging the creation of power plants that would create electricity for poor people, thus condemning millions of them to difficult and short lives. In Uganda, the lack of electricity forces people to cut down trees, thus destroying wildlife habitats.
Radical environmentalists are victimizing the poor in their wrong-directed attempts to save the planet.
Increased Carbon Dioxide May Be Good For The Planet
As noted above, the basis premise of the Evangelical Environmental Network --that there is consensus among scientists about the dangers of global warming-- is also challenged by the leaders of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, headed by scientist Arthur Robinson.
Robinson is a Ph.D. with a chemistry background and taught at the University of California, San Diego. He was also co-founder with Dr. Linus Pauling of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Menlo Park, California.
Dr. Robinson circulated a petition in the late 1990s asking for scientists to sign a statement opposing the Kyoto Protocol and its claim that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is harmful. More than 17,000 scientists signed the petition.
It stated that “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
To prove this point, Dr. Robinson and several fellow scientists published “Environmental Effects Of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” In it, they observe that “Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
***
“Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we are now blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.”
What Do We Do?
TVC is in agreement with the Cornwall Declaration, published by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. We are reprinting this document below:
The past millennium brought unprecedented improvements in human health, nutrition, and life expectancy, especially among those most blessed by political and economic liberty and advances in science and technology. At the dawn of a new millennium, the opportunity exists to build on these advances and to extend them to more of the earth's people.
At the same time, many are concerned that liberty, science, and technology are more a threat to the environment than a blessing to humanity and nature. Out of shared reverence for God and His creation and love for our neighbors, we Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, speaking for ourselves and not officially on behalf of our respective communities, joined by others of good will, and committed to justice and compassion, unite in this declaration of our common concerns, beliefs, and aspirations.
Our Concerns
Human understanding and control of natural processes empower people not only to improve the human condition but also to do great harm to each other, to the earth, and to other creatures. As concerns about the environment have grown in recent decades, the moral necessity of ecological stewardship has become increasingly clear.
At the same time, however, certain misconceptions about nature and science, coupled with erroneous theological and anthropological positions, impede the advancement of a sound environmental ethic. In the midst of controversy over such matters, it is critically important to remember that while passion may energize environmental activism, it is reason—including sound theology and sound science—that must guide the decision-making process. We identify three areas of common misunderstanding:
1. Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God's image, to add to the earth's abundance. The increasing realization of this potential has enabled people in societies blessed with an advanced economy not only to reduce pollution, while producing more of the goods and services responsible for the great improvements in the human condition, but also to alleviate the negative effects of much past pollution. A clean environment is a costly good; consequently, growing affluence, technological innovation, and the application of human and material capital are integral to environmental improvement. The tendency among some to oppose economic progress in the name of environmental stewardship is often sadly self-defeating.
2. Many people believe that "nature knows best," or that the earth—untouched by human hands—is the ideal. Such romanticism leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation. Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth's inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth. Human life, therefore, must be cherished and allowed to flourish. The alternative—denying the possibility of beneficial human management of the earth—removes all rationale for environmental stewardship.
3. While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. Some well-founded concerns focus on human health problems in the developing world arising from inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive biomass fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural, industrial, and commercial practices; distorted resource consumption patterns driven by perverse economic incentives; and improper disposal of nuclear and other hazardous wastes in nations lacking adequate regulatory and legal safeguards. Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.
The real and merely alleged problems differ in the following ways:
1. The former are proven and well understood, while the latter tend to be speculative.
2. The former are often localized, while the latter are said to be global and cataclysmic in scope.
3. The former are of concern to people in developing nations especially, while the latter are of concern mainly to environmentalists in wealthy nations.
4. The former are of high and firmly established risk to human life and health, while the latter are of very low and largely hypothetical risk.
5. Solutions proposed to the former are cost effective and maintain proven benefit, while solutions to the latter are unjustifiably costly and of dubious benefit.
Public policies to combat exaggerated risks can dangerously delay or reverse the economic development necessary to improve not only human life but also human stewardship of the environment. The poor, who are most often citizens of developing nations, are often forced to suffer longer in poverty with its attendant high rates of malnutrition, disease, and mortality; as a consequence, they are often the most injured by such misguided, though well-intended, policies.
Our Beliefs
Our common Judeo-Christian heritage teaches that the following theological and anthropological principles are the foundation of environmental stewardship:
1. God, the Creator of all things, rules over all and deserves our worship and adoration.
2. The earth, and with it all the cosmos, reveals its Creator's wisdom and is sustained and governed by His power and loving kindness.
3. Men and women were created in the image of God, given a privileged place among creatures, and commanded to exercise stewardship over the earth. Human persons are moral agents for whom freedom is an essential condition of responsible action. Sound environmental stewardship must attend both to the demands of human well being and to a divine call for human beings to exercise caring dominion over the earth. It affirms that human well being and the integrity of creation are not only compatible but also dynamically interdependent realities.
4. God's Law—summarized in the Decalogue and the two Great Commandments (to love God and neighbor), which are written on the human heart, thus revealing His own righteous character to the human person—represents God's design for shalom, or peace, and is the supreme rule of all conduct, for which personal or social prejudices must not be substituted.
5. By disobeying God's Law, humankind brought on itself moral and physical corruption as well as divine condemnation in the form of a curse on the earth. Since the fall into sin people have often ignored their Creator, harmed their neighbors, and defiled the good creation.
6. God in His mercy has not abandoned sinful people or the created order but has acted throughout history to restore men and women to fellowship with Him and through their stewardship to enhance the beauty and fertility of the earth.
7. Human beings are called to be fruitful, to bring forth good things from the earth, to join with God in making provision for our temporal well being, and to enhance the beauty and fruitfulness of the rest of the earth. Our call to fruitfulness, therefore, is not contrary to but mutually complementary with our call to steward God's gifts. This call implies a serious commitment to fostering the intellectual, moral, and religious habits and practices needed for free economies and genuine care for the environment.
Our Aspirations
In light of these beliefs and concerns, we declare the following principled aspirations:
1. We aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order.
2. We aspire to a world in which objective moral principles—not personal prejudices—guide moral action.
3. We aspire to a world in which right reason (including sound theology and the careful use of scientific methods) guides the stewardship of human and ecological relationships.
4. We aspire to a world in which liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals.
5. We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people's natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.
6. We aspire to a world in which widespread economic freedom—which is integral to private, market economies—makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.
7. We aspire to a world in which advancements in agriculture, industry, and commerce not only minimize pollution and transform most waste products into efficiently used resources but also improve the material conditions of life for people everywhere.
More Inside TVC...
- Liberals Plot New Scheme To Ram Socialist Medicine Through
- God Wins Again
- VAST Protests Radical Imam At Virginia General Assembly
- Obama Seeks Control Of America’s Waterways & Lakes
- Obama’s Care Bear Foreign Diplomacy Undermines Our National Security
- ObamaCare Includes Provision To Takeover Student Loan Program
- Disastrous Week For Obama & Congressional Allies
- TVC Launches www.endahurtskids.com Campaign
- Democrats Mislead on Health Care 'Reconciliation'
- Our Soldiers Are Not Lab Rats!




