Over at George Mason's Center for Climate Change Communication, they are hosting a poll asking readers to vote for the 2008 Climate Change Communicator of the Year. Among the choices are such notables as Thomas Friedman, Bill McKibbon, John Warner, and Chevron's "Will You Join Us" Campaign.
But my vote would be for a name not on that list: the Reverend Richard Cizik, VP for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals. Cizik is a perfect spokesperson for a hard to mobilize segment of Republican-leaning America. Not only does he have credibility among Evangelicals, but he actively understands how to frame the complexity of climate change in a way that is personally meaningful.
Consider the following excerpts from Cizik's recent interview on NPR's Fresh Air with host Terry Gross:
GROSS: I imagine you didn't agree with Sarah Palin on environmental issues. For example, her emphasis on drill, baby, drill, and also the fact that she said she wasn't sure if human behavior contributed to climate change. Now, climate change and the environment are issues you're trying to put much more toward the top of the evangelical agenda.
REV. CIZIK: Yeah, I couldn't - you're right. I couldn't have disagreed with her more. Just a year ago, we found out from climate scientists that the melt in the Arctic had turned into a rout. It was happening so fast it was as if your hair turned gray overnight. Now, I have a receding hairline, but I don't have my hair turning gray overnight. Well, that's what happened with the environment. An area the size of Colorado was disappearing every week, and the Northwest Passage was staying wide open all September for the first time in history. And so, to look at this and not see what's hap-pening, I think is, well, it was sort of the ignorance is strength idea. Well, not. It's not strength. Look, strength is know-ing what's happening to the world around us, and moreover, as a Christian, we can't claim to love the Creator and abuse the world in which we live. To do so is like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays....
...I'm always looking for ways to reframe issues, give the biblical point of view a different slant, if you will, and look it - we have to. The whole world, literally, the planet, is changing around us. And if you don't change the way you think and adapt, especially to things like climate change, scientists like Bob Doppelt, he says, well, if you don't adapt and change your thinking, you may ultimately be a loser because climate change, in his mind, he is a systems analyst, has the capacity to determine the winners and losers, and your life will never be the same, growing up during, I say, the great warming. Our grandparents grew up during the Great Depression. Our parents, well, they lived in the aftermath of that and became probably, the most, well, the greediest generation and our generation, this younger one, needs to be the greenest....
GROSS: Let me just ask you a pointed question. Are you waiting for some of the evangelical leaders who have op-posed you on issues like your concern about the environment and climate change, are you waiting for them to retire and leave the stage? And I guess I'm thinking most specifically here about James Dobson.
REV. CIZIK: I'm not waiting. I would want Jim Dobson to join us because this is about creation care. It's what the Bible teaches. It's godly, it is right. So I'm not waiting for him to leave the scene at all. I want him to join us. In other words, I'm always looking, Terry, for allies, not adversaries. Always allies. This is important. It's strategically important for Christians to care for this earth, just as it's important for Christians to care for the family. These are equals. They're both part of God's concern, they're both part of his heart. And so no, I'm not waiting.
GROSS: I appreciate what you're saying, but at the same time I think the odds of you winning over James Dobson on this are probably slim. So do you think what's going to change in the long run...
(Soundbite of laughter)
REV. CIZIK: With God, all things are possible.
GROSS: ...is that he and some of the other people who oppose your work on putting environmental issues near the top of the agenda, do you think that what's going to change is that they will retire and there will be a new guard?
REV. CIZIK: Well, inevitably that occurs. Even some of the names on the letter that opposed me back just a few years ago are gone. But that doesn't change the fact that we all will pay a price for not changing. The Earth is reaping the consequences of our actions when we don't reexamine our habits of consumption, right? The poor around the world, well, they're reaping the consequences of our failing to meet our obligations. This is not something that can wait for any of us to retire. Some may be wanting me to, but the Gospel paints a vision of society that is relationally and environ-mentally sustainable. What do I mean by that, relationally sustainable? It's a message of hope that we all get along, not just get along, but work together for a cause which is bigger than ourselves.
- Log in to post comments
Hopefully this is a real trend; not so long ago, Jerry Falwell was dismissing global warming as a myth. The creation care movement gives me a glimmer of hope that evangelical Christian leaders will embrace evolutionary creationism. It is already espoused by evangelical scientists like Keith B. Miller; if it were adopted by someone within the church leadership structure like Cizik it could have a huge impact on the general public.
Reverend Cizik clearly deserved to have been nominated for 2008 Climate Change Communicator of the Year. Sadly, when we issued an open call for nominations, no one nominated him. Perhaps you will do so next year Matt. In the meanwhile, some extremely worthy people are in the race this year. The polls close at midnight on December 18th, so vote now before you lose the chance: http://climatechange.gmu.edu
Dr. Nisbett: What is the principle here? Czik says sensible, reasonable things about the science interspersed with fundamentalist statements. Your enthusiasm for him suggests to me that there is at least one group of Americans that connects to science in a manner that is largely cultural. Are there other groups that require cultural communicators for science? A retired CEO of Exxon to communicate with the big business types, a tough Malborough Man to communicate with the rugged individualist males, etc. Or, is the fundamentalism population of America the main target?
Hi Don,
Any audience requires a cultural connection and frame of reference for interpreting and making sense of the personal relevance of climate change. So for example, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg might be strong spokespersons for reaching moderate Republicans and Independents who track market developments, with Buffett and Bloomberg defining cap and trade or energy technology in terms of investment potential.
Matt,
The reverend seems to be promoting a rather sensationalist picture with regards to climate change. How does this square with the following comment you made (referring to Mike Hulme's work):
Hulme's study supports what we argue at Science: on climate change, the Pandora's Box or catastrophe frame doesn't work. It opens environmental groups up to counter-claims of alarmism and only appeals to the already concerned.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/hey_framers_what_do_you_think…
Cheers
Matthew:
I appreciate the reference to "moderate Republicans."
From Brad Delong's blog today, apropos or beyond possibilities for cultural connections?
, a post from Gideon Richman, skipping to the point at hand,
2. The �End of Days� crowd is very strong. I would say that about a third of the e-mails I got referred me to the Book of Revelations - in which, apparently, it is all foretold. In an idle moment, I e-mailed one of my correspondents back and said that I have never read Revelations, since I am an athiest. Big mistake.
3. There are a lot of people who believe not only that global warming is a hoax - but that it is actually a conspiracy. The fact that the most influential reports on climate change have been produced by an intergovernmental panel (IPCC) - sponsored by the UN - fuels this theory. The idea is that the UN is perpetuating a climate-change hoax, to provide an excuse to impose a world government on America. I�m all part of it apparently.
4. I can see what Obama means by referring to �bitter� people clinging to guns and religion. And clinging is the word. Several people informed me that I would only remove their guns �from my cold, dead hands.�