Some people believe that reducing our use of hydrocarbons, and the level of CO2, has become a moral issue. Indeed, the Catholic Bishops have said that our stewardship of the earth is a moral issue. Several Evangelical leaders have also supported global warming solutions as a moral issue.
However, as more science comes to light, and as more of the global warming claims are peer reviewed, some religious groups are speaking out differently. One group, called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, has begun to address the issue of global warming from a moral viewpoint, which is supported by science. One post on the Website for the Alliance states:
“The appearance of growing consensus among evangelicals in favor of alarm over CHIGW is fictitious, fabricated by a few advocates associated with the Evangelical Climate Initiative, which offered almost no evidence for its assertions and was endorsed not by scientists and economists with relevant expertise but mostly by Christian college presidents and mission leaders and was rejected by the National Association of Evangelicals (representing 30 million members) and the Southern Baptist Convention (16 million members) and refuted in “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming,” which has been endorsed by 124 evangelical leaders.”
Last week, I listened to a speaker who was addressing the global warming issue from a moral and ethical viewpoint. He asked, ‘do we believe God when He tells us that he will protect the earth until the end of times? Do we really believe that God would allow us to destroy his greatest creation? ‘
Personally, I believe that we do have a moral obligation to be good stewards of the environment. We should protect our water, air, and living environment. Strong environmental protection laws are important. Political differences of opinion on environmental issues tend to be on the means, not the objective. Exaggerating or fabricating problems, has nothing to do with true environmentalism.



Evangelical Christians have traditionally voted conservative, so for there to be a controversy at all about stewardship of the earth is significant.
And there is actually more of a split among evangelicals than your comments about your source suggest. Like your comment about “The Wall Street Journal” questioning Gore’s movie (it was an opinion piece, there’s a difference), you mischaracterize the evangelical split on global/environmental stewardship. Note the following articles:
March 9, 2007:
Evangelical Board Split Over Leader’s Global Warming Efforts
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070309/26229_Evangelical_Board_Split_Over_Leader%5C’s_Global_Warming_Efforts.htm
March 10, 2007:
Evangelical Board Split Over Leader’s Global Warming Efforts
http://ny.christianpost.com/article/society/405/section/evangelical.board.split.over.leaders.global.warming.efforts/1.htm
This divide is not a new thing that appeared just this month, or this year:
OCT. 17, 2006 / UPDATED JAN. 16, 2007
The evangelical divide on global warming
http://www.religionlink.org/tip_061017a.php
Aug 21, 2006 5:00 AM (214 days ago)
Mark Tooley: Evangelicals tussle over global warming
http://www.examiner.com/a-232621~Mark_Tooley__Evangelicals_tussle_over_global_warming.html