Candidates on climate change as moral issue

Clinton & Obama to be queried on CNN tonight at 8pm EST on climate

Posted by Erik Hoffner (Guest Contributor) at 2:12 PM on 13 Apr 2008

Dem hopefuls Clinton and Obama will participate live tonight in The Compassion Forum, a discussion of "pressing moral issues that bridge ideological divides" including poverty, AIDS, Darfur, human rights, torture, and ... drumroll please ... climate change.

The pair will field questions from CNN and Newsweek talking heads as well as from members of the faith community. The Rev Sally Bingham, of the very cool Interfaith Power and Light Campaign will be asking the climate questions. Go get 'em, Sally!

And for the interest of any political strategists out there, this forum is slated to be broadcast on Church Communications Network to tens of thousands of people in 1,000+ congregations nationwide on April 20, the Sunday evening before the PA primary.

For story: Candidates on climate change as moral issue
8 Comments | Post a Comment

"Brethren in Christ Church"?

I never heard of that denomination, or of their foundation, Messiah College. And, being very ignorant about most Protestant things, I am not sure how Anabaptist, Pietist, and Wesleyan (i.e. Methodist -- Hillary's church) meet and mingle.

For those of us who did not hear the debate, and probably will not be able to on the 20th either, I hope there will be a transcript.

Hillary and Obama probably can talk all this talk fairly fluently. It strikes me that events like this are in the longer term not so important for what the candidates say, as for what they are made to start thinking about, on account of the questions put to them. So, we can hope that Sally Bingham has got them to think seriously about the ethics of dealing with global warming in ways that did not occur to them before.

The list of topics seems wide-ranging, but is in fact rather small. And from that we should learn that the agenda of any US president is always going to be much much narrower than the true ethical agenda of the American people. After all, what can a US president expect to accomplish, in an area as vast and complicated as human rights? A US president could indeed be effective, perhaps, in dealing with the genocide in Darfur, but probably not so much in dealing with the regimes in Zimbabwe and Burma, and not so much in responding to the just demands of the Tibetan people.

And then there are the "boutique" ethical issues, such as gay rights (ooh, an "ideological divide" like the Grand Canyon!), the biodiversity crisis, and animal welfare. These are extremely important to many people -- but though they are many, they are still insignificant minorities. Naturally, politicians will neither need nor want to say anything about them. So, for those of us who care deeply about those things, we cannot afford to look exclusively to elected officials for leadership or guidance.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:54 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Obama "elitist," "offensive"?

OK, here is John Broder's review in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14forum.htm ...

Nothing about global warming, one might observe. Nor about human rights, Darfur, etc. It was all about appealing to middle-class church-going white people, apparently.

William Kristol also has up in the Times a fierce charge on Obama's alleged elitism. Funny how Hillary and the right-wing GOP apologists agree on that.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:33 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Same old...

I saw the second half of the program and the last bit of Hillary's section. The first questions they asked Obama about were abortion and whether he believes the creation story. The next questioner wanted to ask specifically about evolution, but Obama had already covered it, so there was a bit about climate change thrown in there by the questioner. The phrase "cap and trade" sounded mysteriously out of place amongst all the other phrases floating around. I didn't see the Rev. Sally Bingham at all, so if she asked a question it must have been of Hillary earlier on.

There was one question about poverty, whether Obama would commit to reducing it by 50% in ten years. He suggested he would keep the section of government that supports religious organizations but for poverty reduction, not recruitment.

If the forum was as good as the issue listed in this post, it would have been great. Unfortunately, as a person who believes deeply in what seems to be the central tenet of Christianity, I can't help but feel people are still missing the point. There's so much more to be accomplished if people can get away from issues that there will just never be full agreement on. Why these questions were asked at all, I'm really not sure.

by dissociated at 8:22 AM on 14 Apr 2008

How about the Science Debate?

The candidates agreed to do this debate but not the Science Debate that scientists and universities are trying to put together. Says something.

EarthlingAngst

by EarthlingAngst at 9:01 AM on 14 Apr 2008

yes

Yes, I was hoping the climate piece was going to be more prominent, but the fact that it was part of the debate, purposefully, was big.

Hillary's response was not exciting. I forget what Obama said.

The broadcast cut Sally's question off, and she was planning on really dialing in the moral dimension of climate disaster and poor communities/countries. Too bad.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 10:06 AM on 14 Apr 2008

As they describe themselves,

at least, the Brethren in Christ sound like lovely folks:

http://www.bic-church.org/about/history.asp.

Of course, the part about "obedience" needs to be examined; that can be easily manipulated by the strong-minded types with lots of leadership potential.

And the emphasis on emotion is tricky too: their need to "enjoy" God's presence, to grow daily in discipleship, etc.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 10:53 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Obama said...

I do recall Obama said something about how religion can support climate change action or something like that. I remember agreeing with however he phrased that particular comment. People are willing to do a lot for religion that they wouldn't do otherwise, so if the major religions of the world became convinced that this truly was a moral issue, and started really incorporating that into their belief systems and activist efforts, the impact of that would be profound, especially considering that people who tend to be strongly religious often don't (so far) overlap much with those who tend to be concerned about climate change. But, as has been said before, climate change is not just another environmental issue. It really is a moral issue that's very connected with the economic futures of poorer countries. People just aren't quite seeing it yet, as the vast majority of people still don't fully realize what the role of the rich countries has been in the state of poorer countries thus far. Religion and spirituality has a lot of potential if it's uncoupled from dogma. Can't see the forest for the trees...

I honestly don't remember much of his response beyond that either.

by dissociated at 1:04 PM on 14 Apr 2008

Obama

Full transcript is here,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html ...

but this is what he said to Rev Cizik's question:

OBAMA:

So, look, the -- one of the things I draw from the Genesis story is the importance of us being good stewards of the land, of this incredible gift. And I think there have been times where we haven't been and this is one of those times where we've got to take the warning seriously.

But I think that we are seeing enough warning signs for us to take this seriously. And part of what my religious faith teaches me is to take an intergenerational view, to recognize that we are borrowing this planet from our children and our grandchildren.

And so we've got this obligation to them, which means that we've got to make some uncomfortable choices. And where I think potentially religious faith and the science of global warming converge is precisely because it's going to be hard to deal with.

We have to find resources in ourselves that allow us to make those sacrifices where we say, you know what? We're not going to leave it to the next generation. We're not going to wait.

We are going to put in place a cap-and-trade system that controls the amount of greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere. And we know that that requires us to make adjustments in terms of how we use energy. We've got to be less wasteful, both as a society and in our own individual lives.

And having faith, believing that this planet and this world extends beyond us, it's not just here for us, but it's here for, you know, more generations to come. I think religion can actually bolster our desire to make those sacrifices now. And that's why, as president, I hope to be able to rally the entire world around the importance of us being good stewards of the land.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 1:57 PM on 14 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.