Policy and Christian Morality

In July, Pope Leo XIV raised some eyebrows when he prayed for “the conversion of those resisting climate action,” as one headline put it.

In fact, the exact quote was somewhat different from the headline: “We must pray for the conversion of many people, inside and outside of the church, who still do not recognize the urgency of caring for our common home, or the care of creation.” One might recognize the “urgency of caring for creation” without supporting the raft of policies that currently go under the rubric “climate action.” There is, moreover, considerable ambiguity about what constitutes “climate action.”

But the gist of the pope’s remarks, placed within the context of his statements over the years, suggests that the headlines got his meaning essentially right: Christian morality entails supporting government measures that aim to decrease global warming.

This is but one example of a highly problematic approach to moral analysis that has often plagued the relationship between religion and politics. The deficiency in the approach is the failure to do the hard work of discerning the actual effects of public policy.

The issue of climate change is a case in point. There is widespread consensus among Christians of all stripes that human beings have a responsibility, as stewards of creation, to care for the earth and ensure that it remains a hospitable environment for future generations. This principle would naturally imply an obligation—insofar as it is within human control—to prevent the earth from heating to the point where life would be severely burdened.

Does this mean that all Christians are obliged to support every policy that claims the mantle of “climate change action”? Not at all. There is a wide gulf between the premise of the moral obligation and the conclusion that a particular climate action is required. It is this gap that is often glided over by those who promote global warming remediation.

The central problem is that contention over the question of climate change does not derive primarily from differences of moral principle but from different assessments of the facts. Here are some of the facts that must be established in order to reach policy conclusions in this area:

• Is the earth warming? To what degree is it warming? Is this warming, on balance, helpful or harmful to the planet, including its human inhabitants?
• What is the cause of this warming? Is there more than one cause? Can any of these causes be influenced substantially by human action?
• What is the most effective way to ameliorate these causes? What are the trade-offs involved? Here, opportunity cost must be considered: If we spend a billion dollars pursuing one course of action, will that produce greater benefit than spending that billion in a different way? (In fact, one recent global warming regulation cost a trillion dollars. Do we have any confidence that this trillion couldn’t have been spent in a different way that would have achieved more good?)
• Considering practical, constitutional, economic, social, and other concerns, should those actions deemed most effective be pursued through government action, private action, or public-private partnership? Which level of government should take action?

The situation is even more complicated than this series of questions implies, because there may not be clear and decisive answers available to some of the questions, which makes moving on to the next question even more problematic. In other words, there isn’t just uncertainty; there are levels of uncertainty, and therefore there must be considerable room for reasonable people to disagree. The very nature of the question does not lend itself to moral absolutes beyond the level of principle. There would doubtless be broad consensus that, say, an evil scientist should not launch an ozone-destroying missile into the atmosphere in a bid to aggravate global warming. Beyond such easy cases, the moral analysis quickly increases in complexity. Whether coal should be outlawed as a source of energy is a question that involves an array of interrelated questions concerning the impact of fossil fuels on the environment and the economy that cannot be simply dismissed with a blunt fiat: We must do this to save the planet.

Christians should recognize that we are all in constant need of conversion: to greater love for God and for each other, and thus to greater sensitivity to our impact on “our common home”—the creation of God within which our neighbors will thrive (or not). But it is a great leap from that acknowledgment to an assertion that skepticism toward “green” political agendas is a moral failing. Those who favor such agendas need to do more than issue morality-themed exhortations; they need to demonstrate, by logic and evidence, that their proposals are actually the best way forward.