Climate change and Christianity

The polarizing nature of climate change still occasionally surprises me. It really shouldn't - I've seen how solutions have the potential to upend social hierarchies and taken-for-granted ways of life. I've been called a liar (not to my face, thankfully) and told that the science is merely "what I believe." But the research is so solid, the risk so high, that the thought of people violently denying the concept is dispiriting. This rejection personally affects me because I've devoted much of my adult life to creating climate solutions. In fact, I just completed a 300 mile bicycle ride from New York to D.C. to support several climate change and bicycling organizations.

Seeing this denial in evangelical Christians is particularly frustrating because I am a Christian who started out in an evangelical church. I know these people, love these people, and am actually related to some of them. So for them to not only disagree with me, but completely dismiss my life's work, is deeply discouraging.

From a pragmatic point of view, I believe it's important to engage American evangelicals on climate change. Not only can they be a significant political bloc, but they are often very influential in their communities. Church members regularly participate in other local groups, like PTAs and City Councils. As federal activities frequently follow local ones, mobilizing a community's leaders is essential. Building these alliances could be the key to moving many cities, and eventually the U.S., towards action.

Lastly, I see this rejection as conflicting with our shared faith. In fact, my belief in loving my neighbors drives my passion on the subject. Climate change is the epitome of environmental injustice - the most vulnerable are suffering because of actions by those more privileged. Living in a way that ignores climate change's impacts is not only ignoring those who need food, drink, or clothing, but in some cases, taking it right out of their hands. Not to mention climate change's devastating effects on the ecology of the world that Christians believe God created. Many other Christian organizations agree with my perspective, including the U.K.'s Christian Aid and Operation Noah. Even the Catholic Church, for all of its failings, has taken a stand on the subject. But when Richard Cizik, the National Association of Evangelicals' vice president for governmental affairs, spoke up about climate change, he was pressured to resign. Why can't most American evangelicals acknowledge this as an issue?

The first reason evangelicals have ignored climate change overlaps with a major reason non-evangelicals have as well - climate change is hard to see and appears to only affect distant people. This issue can be approached from two angles: by directly helping local victims and/or raising awareness of those abroad.

On the local level, one of the best ways to interact with people affected by climate change is by getting involved in adaptation activities. Based on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences and the US Global Change Research Program, many cities are forming plans and services to help those who are or may be affected by climate change. Fortunately, helping the victims has the side benefit of raising volunteers' awareness. Being part of a team reaching out to elderly people to ensure they avoid heatstroke or assisting families without electricity because of a recent hurricane puts a local, human face on the impacts.

Listening to the stories of international victims may be another effective method to prompt action. Many evangelicals already care about similar issues abroad, like malnutrition and lack of fresh water. They give money to Heifer International or "adopt" a child participating in a missions project. Yet they have no idea that climate change could set development efforts back by decades (according to Oxfam). By taking groups in developing countries that churchgoers already care about and illustrating how climate change will negate efforts to help them, the impacts are made real. The most empowering and effective way to do this seems to be helping people hear the victims' stories in their own voices. Climate Central, Oxfam, Christian Aid, and many other organizations have started to do this work, but bringing these stories to American churches could really move the needle.

The second major reason both evangelicals and non-evangelicals don't get involved is that climate change is something we all contribute to, even if it's inadvertently. As with sexism and racism, people find it very difficult to admit they are part of the problem. In my experience, the best way to tackle this is to communicate that we're all in this together. When we approach climate change as a community, it takes the pressure off of each individual to be perfect. Luckily, churches, with their built in social networks, already have a great set-up. Starting at the individual church and then building it to a larger grassroots action can be extremely powerful.

The third major reason some evangelicals have rejected climate change is very different from the other two - their vast cynicism about and misunderstanding of science. Even the most heart-felt testimonies will not sway those who think the very cause is made up. Unfortunately, I think climate change is too politically fraught to solve this problem. For this group, the most effective approach may be showing how the solutions to climate change can improve their communities and lives. This was actually the main approach I used when I recently lobbied Congress, another place where science is not very popular. People don't want to pay $100 to fill up their gas tanks and then sit an hour and a half in traffic. Instead, they want to walk and bike to the corner store; many even remember doing so fondly from their childhood. People want clean alternatives to the coal-fired plants that contribute to childhood asthma. People want clean, healthy food that supports the local economy instead of that which poisons the land and the workers that pick it. And so on and so on. The beauty of this approach is that I know it actually works. I received a very generous Climate Ride donation from my conservative aunt for this reason. In addition to her fondness for me, she supported me because she frequently uses a Rails-to-Trails walking/biking path, one of the Climate Ride beneficiaries. Changing the conversation from problems to solutions helps people see that they have a place in this new society, removing much of the fear. Ideally, it also helps them see the larger context, that everyone benefits from a more environmentally and socially sustainable economy. Although it fails to challenge their privilege, a baby step may be all we can ask from this group right now.

With climate change, we have to acknowledge we are the simultaneous cause and solution. As a result, we all have to band together to make a difference. Bracken Hendricks, one of the founders of the green jobs movement, spoke to us the final night before we rode to Capital Hill. He said that to solve the very real injustices of climate change, we have to build a movement like that for civil rights. We have to approach it from every angle - legal action, mass media coverage, community responses, and face-to-face conversations. I believe evangelical churches could be a true ally in this movement. But first, we have to break the political and mental barriers restricting churches and individuals from taking action. Finding the right language and stories to tell is just the first step to helping them become part of the solution.


-- Storiteller
____________________________________________________________________________

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

C

Comments

[MaryKaye]

The factor that worries me the most is not any of the ones you mention, but the polarization of US society to the point that many people seem to feel that they cannot support a cause if "They" also support it--where They might be liberals, intellectuals, scientists, atheists, non-US nationals, people from the coasts, people from cities, etc.

I really don't know how to build a coalition across them-versus-us thinking. I do have some hopeful stories about folks overcoming them-versus-us and working together for their own best interests, but I don't have a clue how to make that happen.

One story to share--it cheers me up--

A Pagan group in Florida was told by the city that they were a "church" and would need dedicated parking, permits, etc. in order to be able to meet at a member's house and worship. (This was a group of maybe a dozen people, so the request was pretty ridiculous--a clear attempt to shut them down.)

They went to the Baptist Womens' Association and said, "Do you think you should need permits to have Bible studies in your own home? If not, could you help us out here?"

The Baptist Womens' Association came down on the city like an almighty ton of bricks and made them back down. Bless them.

We had a similar story here in Seattle where pictures of a Pagan church's stone circle were used by a news station as background for a sensationalistic scare story about Satanism. Amazingly, the Catholic Archdiocese protested strongly to the station and forced them to apologize and delete the material.

So, it can happen--people can realize it's not Them and Us--but how to make it happen?

[MaryKaye]

On a different tack--

I can't help thinking that one reason so many people distrust science is that mainstream science reporting is *so* *bad*. When a lot of what gets reported is nonsense, people without the background to do massive filtering and correcting may understandably decide that all of it is nonsense.

Almost every time I see a newspaper story about my own area of expertise, it is flawed at best and complete nonsense at worst. I've seen stories that mislabel bacteria as viruses, stories that reverse cause and effect, stories that confuse "significant" and "non-significant". My lab was thrown into a tizzy once by a morning news report "Juvenile diabetes has been solved"--had we been scooped? No, it was just lousy reporting of a statistical correlation that might explain 10% of the risk.

How to fix? As a scientist I know to be very careful what I say to the press, and to demand right of correction--my colleagues have been burned on this too many times. But how about as media consumers? How can we stand up for sane, careful, responsible science reporting? It's useless to ask people to believe scientists until they have a reliable way to figure out what scientists are actually saying, and current media just aren't doing that well. (With some strong exceptions--I have seen NYT science reporting that's excellent. But there's a huge amount of garbage out there.)

[P J Evans]

maryKaye, I've seen science reporting by the LA Times that was good, except for, almost always, one glaring error somewhere in the middle. (Possibly a 'correction' by an editor, but who knows?) Personally, I like to point people at Science News, which is written at a fairly general level, with references that can take you much deeper.

Maybe it's because they don't feel it's relevant to their lives, because it's not taught in grade school the way it should be. (And then there are the people whose mindset is that if it isn't in the Bible, it shouldn't exist. They need to be challenged more.)

[hapax]

I have seen good science reporting in the local paper -- not in front news section, nor the "Health" section, but in the Business section.

When people can see how it directly affects their bank balance -- e.g., a very interesting report a while back on genetic engineering of blackberries in an attempt to make them survive transport to long distance markets -- then they care enough to get it right.

If only we could figure out some way to monetize minimizing climate change...

[P J Evans]

Generating power more at the local level would reduce costs by reducing the amount of long-distance transmission line that has to be built.
More passenger rail, feeders from rural areas to larger towns and cities, with high-speed (relatively speaking) connections between the major cities - that way people wouldn't have to drive or fly to travel. (Rail is more energy-efficient than cars. Planes are extremely wasteful.) Heck, buses are more efficient than cars for getting from point A to point B.
More chicken/eggs and rabbit in the diet, and a lot less beef - beef cattle are a wasteful way of producing protein, as they need a lot of feed and a lot of space. Cheese would still be around, but not as much of it.
I'd like to see more emphasis on home gardens, not because those could replace commercial farms, but because they're a good supplement to it, and would tend to provide variety. (I'd like to see every apartment/condo/townhouse having a hundred-square-foot garden lot.)

[Nebris]

I suspect the major underlying reason why many 'won't listen' regarding the issue of Climate Change is that it's become fairly obvious that we cannot change its course, that it is basically a natural temperature cycle that we have seriously revved up via a massive input of the toxic byproducts of Industrial Civilization, that it is now beyond amelioration and that likely the best we can do at this point is simply 'ride it out'.

I'm sure we'll survive as a species. We are like f'ing cockroaches in that regard. But the next x-number of generations are looking at a Grim Passage and the various Ways of Life we have now are going to get badly mangled and in many cases plain wiped out.

That is, to say the least, a Tough Sell and Denial is so much easier, especially when many personally think they don't have to worry a future will only get here after they're dead. [But life is full of little surprises, isn't it?]

On the Up Side, maybe this will finally re-wire to deal with Long Term Existential Threats. We're essentially still "See Tiger/Run Now" in our basic instincts and all Scarlett O'Hara ["I'll think about it tomorrow."] when it comes to things like say asteroid strikes.

[Froborr]

it's become fairly obvious that we cannot change its course,

Citation needed.

it is basically a natural temperature cycle

Citation needed.

it is now beyond amelioration

Citation needed.

likely the best we can do at this point is simply 'ride it out'.

Citation needed.

I'm sure we'll survive as a species. We are like f'ing cockroaches in that regard.

Citation needed.

[Nebris]

Dear Froborr, Thanks, but I'm not interesting in a pissing match. I'm sure you could 'counter-site' all of my Citations. That's just a variation on the anti-Warming spin, which is massively tiresome. [and no, you don't get a citation on that one either]

Sorry if my statement upset you. Really, I'm sure we'll all be just fine. Better get another beverage; "Dancing With The Stars" will be on soon.

Yours,
Nebs

[Q.Q. Moar]

Gee, Froboor. You're so edgy. That 'citation needed' thing doesn't have the stale stink of expired meme all over it, no not at all.

[Leum]

Since when is the Slacktiverse community adverse to citing its sources? That's not a trend I want to see here.

[Mmy]

@Leum: Since when is the Slacktiverse community adverse to citing its sources? That's not a trend I want to see here.

Never.

TRIGGER WARNING: SWEARING

@Nebris: I'm sure we'll survive as a species. We are like f'ing cockroaches in that regard

The reason that people would like to see your citations is that they suspect that you do not have a great deal of knowledge about which you are speaking. For example, your counterargument would carry a lot more way if it didn't include obviously silly claims. The fossils of modern cockroaches have been dated back to the early Cretaceous Period. They survived the K-T extinction. Modern homo sapiens have been around for less than half a million years.

We haven't been here long enough, or survived under trying enough circumstances to pat ourselves on our collective backs about how hardy we are.

Human beings have yet to show anything close to the staying power of cockroaches.

[Carrie]

I'm with you, Froborr. I think those claims need support. They are pretty extreme. I also think that, while a pissing match might easily be started, that I'd feel better if Nebris cited zir sources. It seems courteous to do so.

MaryKaye: You are a scientist AND a pagan!? YOU ARE LIKE THE PROTAGONIST IN AN URBAN FANTASY NOVEL. That is awesome. Also, those are lovely stories and they made me smile.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand: I think that reframing the discussion and honing in on solutions and real-world applications is an awesome idea. I think that it's beautifully simple and could work. The serious problem that I see is that the issue of global climate change is tremendously politicized, as is the often rather staunch opposition to science (the source I cite here is the film Jesus Camp which, while admittedly extreme, does support my claim). It seems to me as though those things are real hard to get over, as MaryKaye mentioned. The them-vs-us mentality will potentially make even the prettiest rhetoric flounder and die. If you can't get people to listen, what you're saying matters a lot less.

[Lonespark]

You are a scientist AND a pagan!? YOU ARE LIKE THE PROTAGONIST IN AN URBAN FANTASY NOVEL.

I don't understand this, but it sounds cool. Do Heathen geologists count?

[bluefrog]

How about Kemetic archaeologists?

[jemand]

I think another thing that makes it hard at least in the US is our individualistic streak. And I don't really think the most effective, efficient ways to fight global warming (and honestly, a lot of environmental stuff) can exist at the level of individual action. Sure, one person buying bulk to minimize waste, or take a shorter shower, does help. But even things like recycling requires the community to band together and have pick up times, or places to drop recycling off, etc.

It requires group effort, community effort, and in the current political climate in the US, that is too close to "socialism."

[Becca Stareyes]

We haven't been here long enough, or survived under trying enough circumstances to pat ourselves on our collective backs about how hardy we are.

Not to mention that:

1. Humanity is separate from human civilizations. I like my running water and antibiotics, thank you very much.

2. Even if human civilizations survives, climate change could kill a lot of people who might otherwise have live longer, more productive, happier lives, and generally causes avoidable suffering. Smallpox didn't kill us all, but I'm glad I don't have to worry about catching a disease that could kill me. War generally won't wipe out all of humanity, but I'd rather my country not be invaded (or invade others).

Now, if you want to argue that the measures required to prevent climate change somehow cause more suffering than climate change itself, go ahead, but back up your sources. And if you start ignoring the poor in developing countries because there's not much they can do to prevent (or cause) climate change when they're more worried about feeding their families, but there's a hell of a lot that can happen to them because of climate change, then I will be quite put out.

[Mmy]

@Becca Stareyes: Good points all.

1. Yes. Civilizations can actually be quite fragile and "fall" quite quickly. It is fun exploring the possibilities by reading F/SF -- not so much by living through some of the scenarios.

2. Again yes. It is like the town that clears up its epidemic by diverting its waste water to the nearby river so that it no longer runs into their wells. Great for them and bad for the people who dependent on that river for their drinking water.

One thing that I have noticed is that both "sides" of the debate seem to spend a distressingly small amount of their time/effort on those who are already poor and/or disenfranchised.

[Jenny Islander]

If the administration--well, if the administration first ended the wars we're involved in and then threw its weight behind environmental issues, here are some possibilities that might appeal to Americans who think of scientists as faintly sinister people in white lab coats:

1. Get our clean water supply back from them furriners who sell our own water to us in bottles [that go on to become flotsam and then nurdles in our oceans, but that wouldn't be the point]. Massive push to making sure that every American has clean, decent-tasting tap water. The fact that most people ALREADY have clean, decent-tasting tap water and only drink the bottled stuff because of marketing could be neatly glossed over. Figure out a way to do something conspicuously "helpful" even in places that don't need it and then declare the local water supply "improved." And by all means really do something helpful in places that have crappy water!

2. Affordable travel. Bang the drum for affordable travel. Use some of the war money to subsidize trains instead of planes. Hire the right people to do studies to make sure that they are subsidizing the right trains. Be sure to keep an eye out for any bucolic small towns that get revitalized by having their old whistle stop back and mention them in heart-warming speeches. Subsidize a new network of high-speed trains, but also play up the happy aspects of riding the slower trains--no jet lag, better views, more legroom, etc.

3. A cool-the-cities campaign. Garden roofs, fewer cars, etc., to make the cities less extreme heat islands; sell it to the generation that is reclaiming the inner city. (And meanwhile make sure that commuter trains stop in the newly downscale 'burbs so that poor people are less likely to be stuck there.)

The best thing to do, of course, is to find businesses and grassroots organizations that have already done the hard work of getting these movements started and fund them on a much larger scale than they could have achieved on their own.

[Tweez]

The reason Evangelical Christians deny anthropogenic climate change is because they are now by-and-large a branch of the Republican party. This also applies to their aversion to state-sponsored welfare and enthusiasm for violence, guns, and war. This does not apply to every single Evangelical Christian (note I said by-and-large) but it's sadly true of the movement. Evangelicals may be driving their party in some respects (opposition to abortion, teaching creationism / ID in schools), but the party is driving them in these others. At this point, the Republican party and the Evangelical Christian Church are deeply linked.

[Mmy]

This article Iceland volcano: why we were lucky we weren't wiped out gives one a good idea of just how vulnerable humanity is to changes in the earth's climate. For example, consider what happened after the Mt. Toba volcanic eruption (only @72,000 years ago):

the effect on the post-Toban world was catastrophic: as a result of the thick ash clouds the world's ambient temperature plummeted, perhaps by as much as 5C – and the cooling and the howling wave of deforestation and deaths of billions of animals and plants caused a sudden culling of the human population of the time, reducing it to maybe as few as 5,000 people, perhaps 1,000 breeding pairs. Many anthropologists believe that the event caused a sudden evolutionary bottleneck, with genetic implications that linger to this day. Put more crudely, humanity was nearly wiped out by Toba, and only by the merest hair's-breadth did our ancestors of 72,000 years ago manage to cling on and bequeath to us our current existence.

[eyelessgame]

What Tweez said. Conservatives of all types are in a long-term panic about their prospects; they are cleaving together closely, supporting one another's positions (even when they conflict with their own philosophies, as the four-way inconsistent alliance of Christians, Objectivists, militarists, and racists shows). * When I say "Christian" I am referring only to the Moral-Majority Social-Conservative Christian-Dominionist minority of Christians; the ones who reliably vote Republican. I apologize for the incorrectly-generalized term.

the reason climate change is so polarizing, I think, is that it's a core philosophical point with libertarians. Climate change is a clear market externality and libertarian philosophy must deny the existence of market externalities. It admits of no free-market solution; therefore it is by definition not a problem.

And because conservative Christians plus libertarians plus militarists plus racists just barely make a majority (sometimes), they all have to hang together - therefore it is a requirement that all of them buy into the core philosophies of the other three, no matter how much violence this buy-in does to their own. Christians really oughtn't be laissez-faire capitalists, or pro-war militarists, or racist. But they have to be. (Just as there is no reason any of the other three should have to be anti-abortion. But they all are, because otherwise the coalition falls apart.)

If Christians were not uniformly against climate change, then the possibility would exist that a Republican candidate who identifies as Christian might not be against climate change; he would then not gain the support of libertarians, and would have no means of acquiring majority political support in his area.

[raven_moon]

I suspect there is a fourth thread to the denial of climate change among Evangelicals. I have seen (as I am sure many of us have) a strongly "neo-Calvinist" trend emerge in the evangelical end of the Christian spectrum. Consider the "prosperity gospel," and "name it and claim it" ideologies which have sprung up, to say nothing of the dominionist tendencies which seem to be merging with the evangelical community at an increasing rate.

This neo-Calvinist trend seems to combine a powerful idea of Christian 'eminent domain,' or the God-given right of Christian to take over and use the world with a strongly pro-capitalist slant. The result is the idea that not only is unfettered, Rand-ian style capitalism ethical, but mandated by God. Look, for example, at the Seven Mountains Mandate. Or look to the revisionist history in evidence in much of the Christian home-school curricula, which suggests that capitalism is Godly, and regulation is liberal/socialist/evil. (Rachel Tabachnik has some excellent pieces on this topic on Talk2Action.)

Climate change flies in the face of this entire idea in that it suggests that capitalism, corporate greed, or even man's (or, more specifically, Western, Christian, white man's) progress could be a bad thing. Even more damning on the fact of this kind of manifest corporate destiny is the idea the implication that industry be regulated, and such regulation is the higher moral and ethical good.

I mention this because I think the confluence of corporate capitalism and right wing politico-religious dialog are largely under-reported, but vitaly important to our understanding of how either half of the equation operates.

[storiteller]

MaryKaye, I love those stories about breaking the us-vs-them divide.

As for science reporting, or the lack of it, this is actually a topic I'm really passionate about because I originally intended to go into journalism. Science reporting has gone down the tubes in part because the most experienced and most-narrow writers tend to get fired first, and pure science writers have generally been the first to go. Then, if the publication needs a science article written, they just assign someone who most likely has no background in science beyond H.S. biology. As hapax pointed out, sometimes these writers can ride it out by attaching themselves to something considered more "useful" like business or health, but topics not related to either of those get completely ignored. It also doesn't help that lot of the journalistic dialogue around climate change - in the U.S. at least; I noticed it less in the U.K. - seems to be obsessed with setting it up as a he-said she-said conflict, which is incredibly unscientific. There's a reason I work for the federal government rather than a newspaper or magazine. However, I wouldn't lay all of the blame at the reporters' feet. I had a detail at the National Academy of Sciences where the lead scientist on a paper talked the entire time at the press briefing about what she thought was important (the methodology), almost failing to ever mention the huge, public-relevant point. Of course, all of the articles were unclear, because the reporters couldn't figure out why this report was so important.

As for denying the "there's nothing we can do" argument...every time I've seen that, it's in support of climate change denial. It's almost always phrased, "Climate change isn't happening, and even if it was, we couldn't do anything anyway, and we'll survive no matter what." Personally, I'd rather thrive than merely survive, and catastrophic (and even serious) climate change severely limits the thriving part. And yes, yes, yes about needing citations. I can certainly provide some if anyone wants them...

Jemand: It requires group effort, community effort, and in the current political climate in the US, that is too close to "socialism."

The funny thing is that the height of all community groups in terms of participation is the ever-idealized 1950s. Some of the groups were a bit silly, but at least people knew their neighbors. The awesome thing about community-level action is that it doesn't have to be politicized or scary. Action on climate change as a city might start with a block party where you get to know each other. Personally, I'm part of a Transition Towns group in D.C., an international movement that can be summarized as "Learning to rely on your neighbors for energy rather than fossil fuels."

[Carrie]

I have always wondered if we do not have more passenger trains in the United States because we think that passenger trains are somehow socialist.

[Ray]

1) I think there is a strong sense of "the end of the world is inevitable and will bring God's reign, so why fight it" in the minds of many evangelical Christians. It translates as, "God is in charge, and there's nothing we can do about it."

2) Many hard-core Young Earth Creationists don't believe in the radical temperature changes and cataclysmic results that mark the long-term science of climate change. They can't accept the argument, because they don't believe some of the time claims in the science.

3) I am old enough to remember vividly the claims that, in my lifetime, the earth would enter a new ice age. Much of the public rhetoric for global warming has mirrored that previous rhetoric for global cooling from my early years. (not the science, the rhetoric) Even though the science supporting our current climate change predictions is incrdibly strong, I understand why many my age and older see it as nothing more than just another ice age scare tactic under a different name.

[Ray]

4) Those I described in #3 teach their children and others their own view - and it's really hard to convince those people that "this time we are right".

In a real way, it's like those who believed the May 21st doomsday guy not believing his revised date for later this year. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." In their minds, they've been fooled once . . .

[hf]

In their minds, they've been fooled once

And someone did fool them or lie to them back then, but it had nothing to do with science. (Newsweek seems like the biggest culprit.)

"The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

So I don't know that we've lost much in the way of science journalism.

[cjmr]

I'd like to see more emphasis on home gardens, not because those could replace commercial farms, but because they're a good supplement to it, and would tend to provide variety. (I'd like to see every apartment/condo/townhouse having a hundred-square-foot garden lot.)

Is that a 100 sq. ft. garden plot per apartment/condo/townhouse unit? In the condo development we used to live in, that would have taken just about every inch of green space there was. (And likely the neighbors' dogs would still have sh** in it.) I'm currently trying to figure out how to make my 32 x 16 foot plot really useful--the previous owners had 1 zucchini plant, 9 tomato plants, 6 basil, 1 sage, and two rows of bush beans in it. I'm pretty sure it can produce a lot more than that...

[truth is life]

I have always wondered if we do not have more passenger trains in the United States because we think that passenger trains are somehow socialist.

Well, technically they are in the United States since Amtrak was founded. And it is a contributing factor to why Amtrak and therefore intercity rail has not gotten more funding in support. But no, the main reasons that passenger rail is relatively unpopular in the United States are different, and complicated. Aside from the usual "space" arguments (that the US is very big, and passenger trains, being relatively slow, are not very time efficient at crossing it), off the top of my head there are (or were) three major problems with passenger rail that have led to them being the red-headed stepchild of US passenger transportation that they are.

First, there's the overegulation of passenger rail in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s by the Federal Railroad Administration that made it difficult for the railroads (which have generally been pretty effective--our freight network is one of, if not the, best such networks in the world) to turn a profit on passenger service. Ironically, given the later Republican attitude towards passenger rail, this is an instance where the feds really were screwing things up by imposing ridiculous demands on private corporations; corporations which had, admittedly, been pretty badly behaved a half-century earlier, but which had lost their dominant status in passenger transport to cars (mostly) and airplanes, and therefore had much less scope to behave badly by then.

Second, the fact that track nearly everywhere is owned and maintained by private railroads, that is to say freight railroads, and therefore passenger trains (which have significantly different operations than freight trains) have second fiddle. This manifests itself in having to run over track that's not designed to support the kinds of speeds a relatively light passenger train is capable of (mostly by having inadequate signaling, since slow freight trains don't need that), in mandated speed limits due to mixed traffic (and our earlier friend, the FRA), and in delays due to priority freight trains, amongst other things.

And third, that the government has, since the 1940s, been significantly supporting airplanes (eg., by funding the construction of airports--this was especially notable in World War II, globally--many date the ascendence of air over rail travel to then. If it hadn't happened, air travel might only be common between major cities. But I digress) and cars (Interstates, amongst other things) at the expense of trains (which haven't gotten nearly as much of the federal money, due I suppose to having been at the trough in the second half of the 19th century). This was, again, particularly noticeable after World War II, as the railroads had been worked to exhaustion by the demands of the war, and therefore had significant delayed maintenance and construction demands which the government (as the main cause of said demands) would logically be required to pay for, but didn't. This meant that the railroads had significant money sinks right after the war and were forced to use somewhat outdated equipment, meaning that their customers were less than pleased with the service and drifted towards using cars and airplanes, which were getting shiny new roads and airports thanks to our friend the government.

[Ross]

I'd rather like to take the train rather than drive when we visit my wife's family in New Jersey, but we've never been able ot do it, as it costs 10 times as much and takes twice as long. (Seriously. Three hour drive and fifty bucks in gas, or $500 for a 6 hour train trip)

And that's just wrong.

[sarah]

Amtrak is extremely expensive--a trip from Philly to Boston is $87 at the low end (leaving early in the morning) to over $200 (for the Express train). And that's one way. I'd happily take Amtrak if it weren't so expensive. As it is, I usually end up on Megabus when I go to see my family. It's about double the time, but a fraction of the price.

[MaryKaye]

I do take Amtrak, up and down the West Coast. It's expensive but more relaxed than driving. However, the frequency of problems--due to the freight/passenger conflicts that truth is life mentions--is extremely high, so it can't be used for anything critical. If I had to rush off and visit a sick relative or give a job interview I would have to fly.

The Coast Starlight, which comes up from California, is consistently five hours late by the time it hits Portland. My brother used to take it until we figured this out. Not just occasionally late--predictably, uniformly late. When it is *really* late it may be 10 hours. You can do better by taking the Cascades run which stays out of California--unless, of course, you need to go to California. And you have to know that. Amtrak won't tell you, unless you get lucky with a face-to-face ticket office.

(Caveat: most of my experience is from the '90's and early oughts. It may have gotten better. I hope it hasn't gotten worse!)

[storiteller]

In terms of high speed rail, what makes me particularly angry is that so many governors are giving money back to the Federal government that is supposed to be set aside for those investments. Really? How does giving the money back help anyone?!

[Caryb]

I'm pretty sure it can produce a lot more than that...

One word: hydroponics.

it's become fairly obvious that we cannot change its course,
Citation needed.
it is basically a natural temperature cycle
Citation needed.
it is now beyond amelioration
Citation needed.
likely the best we can do at this point is simply 'ride it out'.
Citation needed.
I'm sure we'll survive as a species. We are like f'ing cockroaches in that regard.
Citation needed.

Speaking in my capacity as an Environmental scientist who has spent most of the past two years studying this- I can't say whether this person is right or wrong. I CAN tell you that the opinions expressed are not at all rare within the environmental community- its pretty basic Malthusian stuff, with the exception of that one claim about "natural temperature cycles" which is pretty much BS.

Now, it IS a fact that some effects of global warming are going to happen. Sea levels have risen and will continue to rise. I don't think all that much can be done to save the North Pole at this point. Now, IF we put all our efforts and money into stopping it, starting today, it probably wouldn't be all that bad. But that won't happen.

And frankly, a lot of people are going to die nastily. Of course, a lot of people die nastily every day, and have done so for the past million years. So I don't know what everyone gets so upset about it- the people dying from climate change are just the latest issue we use to feel good about ourselves. A few years ago it was Darfur. A few years from now, it will be somewhere else. Humans have the attention span of cracked-out chimps, and little to no long term planning abilities, because we were evolved in a world where a 25 year old was a tribal elder.

Basically, global warming is a self correcting process- people heat up the planet too much, so a lot of them die, so the planet cools down, and hopefully people learn what condoms and buses are for. Is it nice? No. It's a fucking lifeboat at this point. All evidence indicates that people will do nothing about global warming until it is far, far too late. Its too late to stop it, and even the most marginal environmental efforts are sources of non-stop debate, not only here, but in places like India and China. Not to mention that, at least in the US, a lot of pollution comes from point sources, like power plants. In India, pollution comes from the half-billion generators that are constantly running so the poor can have lights. So, sure, you can have reduced pollution there- all you have to do is strip electric light bulbs, water heaters, and all the other even marginal comforts of electricity away from hundreds of millions of people. Same in China, Africa- pretty much anyplace that didn't install a central power grid.

And this is the heart of Malthusian Lifeboat Ethics. In that view, the correct answer is YES you take away their generators. Yes, you strip away their comforts, because they aren't going to survive global warming anyway. In Malthusian Ethics, the people without the money and resources to survive, don't. Its a nasty, nasty thing- pure, cold, triage.

At this point however, there is no indication that attitudes about global warming in most crucial polluting states is changing anywhere near fast enough to cause much of a difference. Especially given that the only real alternative to Malthusian ethics in the scientific community is currently a sort of blind faith in technology- that we'll come up with SOMETHING that will work, sooner or later. I like to believe that they're right, but my suspicion is that Malthus is right- nothing will be done until it is too late, so we gotta figure out who lives and who dies NOW, before they're clawing at the doors and our objectivity is compromised.