Why Republicans Should Listen to Evangelicals on Climate Change
Ted Cruz just won the Iowa Caucus, and while his appeal to Evangelical Christian communities may have been a contributing factor to his success, it could be the very thing that loses him votes in the general election. Evangelicals across America are beginning to accept the reality of climate change and our need to act immediately. Politicians that once used climate doubt to win constituents must accept the reality that they are preaching an antiquated message.
With leadership from the National Association of Evangelicals and Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, Protestant Christain communities in America are demanding more from politicians, determining a candidate's unwillingness to posit the climate as a paramount issue as a serious detriment. While Religious News Services suggests a change of stance by politicians, we simply ask that Evangelicals vote with the climate, it's inhabitants, and God in mind.
Check out this how-to-guide on voting for the climate in America
Ted Cruz, you might want to listen to evangelicals on climate change (COMMENTARY)
Aaron Daniel Taylor | Religion News Services
(RNS) Now that Ted Cruz has won Iowa’s Republican presidential caucus, he may want to listen more closely to those evangelicals who supported him on the subject of climate change.
Just last month, the Texas senator, who chairs the Senate’s Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, proudly claimed, “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.”
In fact, the evidence clearly shows that 14 of the 15 warmest years ever recorded all happened since the year 2000. And 2015 was the hottest on record in human history.
The relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and the rise in Earth’s temperature is no longer a matter of correlation. According to 97 percent of climate scientists, it’s a matter of causation.
That’s a fact as sure as smoking causes lung cancer.
Yet too often in the American political landscape the question is asked, “Do you believe in human-caused climate change?” — as if the issue were a matter of personal preference that bends to the will of politicians, not the laws of chemistry and physics.