Saving the World, the NCC Way

Rev. Michael Livingston, president of the National Council of Churches, took part in a telephone news conference yesterday, and as usual, he was viewing with alarm. This time, it’s climate change and its effect on the poor:

It has become clear that global warming is having and will continue to have devastating impacts on those living in poverty around the world, particularly those in least developed countries.

There is no large scale data on this subject that consists of anything more than assertions, at least that I’ve encountered. So Livingston resorts to anecdotal evidence:

From the island of Shishmaref off the coast of Alaska that is literally falling into the sea to the coastal communities of India that are being flooded by rising seas and the rural communities of Africa that can no longer ensure food security for their families and their children, global warming is wreaking havoc on God’s people.

Shishmaref is a village (not an island; it’s on the island of Sarichef) on the Alaska coast, just north of the Bering Strait. Things do look pretty grim there; it may be necessary at some point to abandon the island. Is it because of rising sea levels caused by global warming? Not necessarily, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Erosion rates along the island front exceed (and are not comparable with) those along adjacent sectors. Erosion is occurring along the entire island chain, but it is exacerbated at Sarichef Island in part because of the hydrographic impacts of hard armoring of a sandy shoreface and permafrostdegradation that is accelerated by infrastructure.

I’m no geologist, but what I get out of that is this: Sarichef Island is unique among the islands in this Alaskan chain, and erosion there is worse because of a combination of geological peculiarities and human construction that has destroyed permafrost. Sounds kind of like North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Doesn’t sound like the NCC’s favorite boogeyman.

As for his other two citations, his reference to India is vague enough so that I don’t know what he’s referring to, making it impossible to verify or challenge. And as for “food security” for poor Africans, does anyone remember the great Ethiopian famine of 1983-84? The one that happened within a few years of the proclamations of the coming Ice Age? Feeding poor Africans is a real problem, ceetainly; but linking it to global warming is more than a bit of a stretch. Having established absolutely nothing, Livingston goes on to call for action based on this nothing:

As people of faith we are called to work for justice. The U.S. has created more than 25 percent of global warming pollution and it is our responsibility to not only answer this call but protect and provide for those who will be forced to bear the burden of our actions. The scientific community has told us time and time again that global warming will hit those living in poverty and developing countries the hardest through floods, droughts, an increase in disease, lack of water and civil unrest.

Yes, well. The leaps of logic here are so wide you could call them a rhetorical Grand Canyon. He hasn’t demonstrated–just asserted and assumed–that global warming hurts “the poor,” without being any more specific than that. He claims that U.S. has caused this, without demonstrating–just assuming–that climate change is anthropogenic. He makes an assertion about “the scientific community” that is simply, factually incorrect (only a handful of scientists have even attempted to make a connection between climate change and poverty–that mostly been the job of politicians and church bureaucrats).

So what should we do about this?

As Congress continues to discuss and develop climate legislation, they must provide financial support to those living in poverty abroad. In addition, we must continue to assist in the development of adaptation plans for particularly vulnerable communities while also participating in technology transfers and ongoing assessment of the needs of vulnerable communities around the world.

These provisions are key elements of any climate legislation as they will ensure the development of international relief, adaptation, and mitigation programs for those impacted by climate change.

For people who have a hard time believing that Christ is the only way of salvation, the NCC seems to have no trouble with the idea of the United States as the savior of the world. For the U.S. to “provide financial support to those living in poverty abroad [roughly a billion people--DF],” it would essentially have to sell the country and move to Antarctica (where the ice covering is growing, by the way). As for the rest, it’s hardly original. The U.S. has been doing that kind of work all around the world, through agencies like AID and the Peace Corps, for decades. But why have we been doing so all those years, when global warming is only becoming a looming apocalypse now? Because conditions change all the time, all over the world, and Americans are compassionate people who help those who are effected by things like hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and the like. None of which is contingent on climate change.

He ends with this:

We must provide financial support and the resources necessary to enable our brothers and sisters to eliminate the devastating impacts that global warming will have around the world.

And for our next program: bringing in the Kingdom of God in three easy steps, none of which involve God.