The Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches has been meeting in Switzerland this week, and just as for some people its always 1968, for the WCC its apparently always 2007–Al Gore’s just won the Nobel Peace Prize for for his apocalyptic science fiction movie, and there’s “scientific consensus” about global warming. They issued a statement today that is classic ostrich-head-in-the-sand:
The WCC is disappointed with the outcome of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP 15) held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December 2009 as the Copenhagen Accord did not reach the expectations of the ecumenical movement and the larger civil society.
The mobilization of the ecumenical movement towards and in Copenhagen was aimed at supporting widespread initiatives in order to reach a fair, ambitious and binding treaty. This should have included the recognition of the historic responsibility for the CO2 emissions of industrialized countries, a measurable commitment to have a maximum of 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, concrete ways of adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and funding in a legally binding instrument which would have framed the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
In other words, the expectation was that Copenhagen would give the most extreme of the global warming hysterics (including the WCC) everything they asked for, regardless of cost, regardless of science, regardless of political considerations. Most especially, it was supposed to produce this in the face of Climategate and the burgeoning scandal surrounding the politicized manipulation of data and scientific peer-review processes. Those scandals, which have since engulfed the IPCC and reduced its credibility to next-to-nothing, have continued to unfold around the world, everywhere, apparently, except in Geneva:
In light of these considerations, the executive committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, 23-26 February 2010:
A. Reiterates the serious concerns expressed by the churches over climate change and its life-threatening effects, especially on the poor and vulnerable communities in many parts of the world, such as the low-lying islands of the Pacific or the Great Lakes and Horn of Africa region;
B. Appreciates the wide ecumenical participation in the process towards and in COP 15 in Copenhagen with ecumenical activities such as the ecumenical celebration, the handing over of signatures, lobbying, side events and the statement presented at the high-level segment.
C. Affirmsthe basic thrust of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to provide an instrument for a significant reduction of greenhouse gases in order to mitigate human-induced climate change;
D. Calls for renewed efforts with its member churches to call on their respective governments to ensure with urgency a fair, ambitious and binding agreement to be reached as a result of the COP 16 that will take place in Mexico in December 2010;
E. Encourages member churches, specialized ministries and other ecumenical partners to strengthen further their commitment and to foster their cooperation with regard to climate change, especially in the process towards and at COP 16 in Mexico;
F. Urges member churches and ecumenical councils to enhance inter-religious cooperation and constructive intervention, ensuring better stewardship of creation through their joint actions.
Scandal? What scandal? Questions about the integrity of scientific data? What questions? Concern about the costs of this program, and the likelihood that hundreds of millions of people could be pushed back into poverty by it? What concerns? We’re saving the planet here!
I would like to say that I’m surprised that anyone could have been conscious over the last few months and still advocate the full-speed-ahead-no-matter-what approach. But this is, after all, the WCC we’re talking about. They’re on a mission from God.
February 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm
…which have since engulfed the IPCC and reduced its credibility to next-to-nothing….
Only amongst those who don’t find scientific evidence credible in the first place. The “climate gate” was a tempest in a tea cup. A very small tempest. As much blown out of proportion as the climate doubters say that climate change is.
February 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm
While I don’t really agree that the groupthink corruption of climategate is immaterial (either in perception or in regards to the conclusivity of research), I do tend to agree that climategate is not really the reason why the Church of Gore has lost momentum. Environmentalism as a political movement still remains largely a luxury item in consumer politics. By this, I mean that the potency of political environmentalism tends to be very cyclical and waxes and wanes according to how well it competes with other pressing issues of the moment. I think what’s been evidenced over the last 40 years is that when times are economically good, more people can afford to worry about things like climate change. But when times are bad, when people are deeply worried about losing their jobs, homes, health coverage, etc, political action on climate change not only doesn’t rank well, it actually develops the perception of being an additional threat to people’s bread and butter.
What folks so often don’t understand about politics is that it’s a momentum sport. Sweeping political action doesn’t just require good ideas and compelling advocates. It also requires a moment in history where momentum can be parlayed into action. Political environmentalism had such a moment in 2006-early 2008. Economically, things were pretty okay. Hollywood movies one after the other were soaking the airwaves with the need for environmental action. And best of all, the eastern US (still the message center of the universe) was experiencing boiling summers and unusually mild winters. This was a bonafide moment in history for sweeping action to occur. But for various reasons, it didn’t happen. And now, post Copenhagen fiasco, deep recession, two cool summers and a historically brutal winter later, the moment is gone. Right or wrong, political environmentalism will likely have to rebuild itself pretty much from scratch, and will need a new cadre of leaders, studies, and circumstances to regain what they’ve lost in the last 2 years. This isn’t necessarily a judgment one way or the other about the scientific credibility of climate change. It’s a judgment about where political environmentalism falls in the spectrum of societal concerns, and how beholden it is to forces (political and otherwise) beyond its control.
February 26, 2010 at 8:28 pm
I think your analysis is pretty much correct, with the exception that advocates will have to start “from scratch”. It sometimes seems that the momentum of the moment serves as a “surge” to advance the agenda to the next stage. There is a change, and that change can be built upon.