The God Squad, Part 2: The "Greening" of Christianity

In Part 1, it was noted that religious people are less supportive of reducing carbon emissions than non-religious people. In the last couple of decades, several surveys have shown a negative relationship between religiosity and environmental concern. One commentator sees Christian disregard for the environment as rooted in the Old Testament claim that God gave Man dominion over the Earth, and the New Testament promise of the imminent return of Jesus, which implies to some that they might as well trash the place.

A new study by John Clements and others analyzes data from the 2010 General Social Survey, with a sample size of 1430. Environmental concern is divided into three components: perceived dangerousness of environmental problems, willingness to pay or sacrifice to protect the environment, and self-reported environmentally-conscious behaviors. Here are the results by religious identification. Christians are less environmentally concerned than non-religious people or members of other religious groups.

Perceived Environmental Dangerousness

% choosing “dangerous” or “extremely dangerous”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Air pollution caused by cars	44.4%	57.8%	50.0%
Pesticides and chemicals used in farming	51.7%	71.8%	56.4%
Air pollution caused by industry	64.5%	69.4%	72.4%
Pollution of rivers, lakes and streams	68.4%	75.3%	75.6%

Willingness to Pay or Sacrifice

% choosing “willing” or “very willing”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Pay much higher prices	43.8%	59.4%	55.2%
Accept cuts in standard of living	32.6%	45.7%	43.7%
Pay much higher taxes	28.5%	52.2%	43.7%

Private Environmental Behaviors

% choosing “sometimes” or “always”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Sort glass, cans or plastic for recycling	61.5%	75.7%	62.9%
Buy fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals	33.5%	50.7%	35.0%
Cut back on driving a car	16.1%	31.2%	23.8%

Christians have also been slower to accept the evidence that the Earth is warming. Here are the results of a 2009 survey (n = 1502) by the Pew Research Center.

Since the mid-1990s, the mass media have been publicizing a reform movement within Christianity that claims Christians have a duty to protect the environment. Even Pope Francis has argued for “wise stewardship” of the environment. Has this movement had any impact on Christians' attitudes and behavior?

The same measures of environmental concern were used in the 1993 General Social Survey. Clements and his colleagues found no evidence of the “greening” of Christianity. Self-identified Christians reported less environmental concern than non-Christians and non-religious people in both 1993 and 2010, and there was no significant change in Christian environmental concern. The only exception was a slight moderation of environmental attitudes among evangelical Protestants, which still left them far behind other denominations.

The good news for the environment is that the number of non-religious Americans is increasing, especially among young adults. However, the change is probably too gradual to save the planet.

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

The God Squad, Part 1:  Religion as Selfish Individualism

The God Squad, Part 3:  Projection

I've Seen the "Promised Land" . . . (And It Was Disappointing)

I saw the film four weeks ago, but I've been waiting for it to close in the Pittsburgh area. I can't discuss it without revealing its surprise plot twist, but there are rumors that fracking interests have been leaking the ending in an attempt to discourage attendance. We know they've been running pro-drilling ads and passing out industry leaflets at showings of the film.

The gas companies needn't have worried. People on both sides of the fracking debate will find some things to like and some not to like about Promised Land, but anyone expectating a serious discussion of the environmental and public health risks of fracking will be disappointed. But how could it be otherwise? It seems likely that co-stars and co-writers Matt Damon and John Krasinski and director Gus Van Sant were required to present a “balanced” view of fracking in order to secure studio financing. To do otherwise would have resulted in an unprofessional looking movie and might have damaged their careers. The resulting film is better described as anti-corporate than anti-fracking.

A few plot basics. Damon plays the role of a representative of “Global Power Solutions,” who, with his colleague Frances McDormand, is expected to offer as little money as possible to the poverty-stricken farmers of a Western Pennsylvania town in return for the natural gas drilling rights on their land. He's challenged by a high school science teacher (Hal Holbrook) who is familiar with fracking's risks, and by a friendly and persistent environmentalist (Krasinski), whose persuasiveness frustrates and confuses Damon.

There are some things to like about this film. It dramatizes the real economic plight of rural America. ("You wouldn't be here," one farmer says, "if we weren't poor.") Damon's drilling salesman is a borderline psychopath, willing to say almost anything to get signatures on contracts. The film nicely captures the contrast between the respectful and friendly way he treats these landowners and the demeaning way he talks about them behind their backs. I particularly liked the scene in the diner which a local politician approached Damon for a bribe. It was taken for granted that Global would pay him off, but Damon did his job, talking him into reducing his price by threatening to leave town. Finally, every community should have role model like Holbrook, who had done his homework, and who quietly and patiently stands up against group pressure.

On the other hand, some aspects of the film were totally unrealistic.

• The centerpiece of the plot is a referendum in which the entire community gets to vote on whether to allow fracking in the town. The truth in Western Pennsylvania is quite different. When communities have placed restrictions on fracking, it's been done by their elected officials. But the natural gas companies know it's far too risky to leave such decisions up to the people who are actually affected by them. So in Pennsylvania we have Act 13, which preempts all local zoning laws and substitutes a statewide standard endorsed by the drillers. This encroachment on grassroots democracy is currently being contested in the courts.

• How likely is it that an environmentalist would be allowed to give an anti-fracking demonstration—a rather inflammatory one, at that—to elementary school children?

• Then there's the scene in which a group of anti-fracking folks enter a bar, pick a fight with Damon, and beat him up. Those nasty environmentalists! They're such bullies! Was this a crude attempt to “balance” the film's message?

SPOILER ALERT!!!

• The final twist comes in two parts. Surprise #1. On the eve of the referendum, Global provides Damon with evidence that Krasinski is a fraud. He's lied about his farming background, and the “evidence” he's been using are photos of cows who died for reasons unrelated to drilling. This, of course, totally reverses the momentum leading up to the referendum. Surprise #2. He's not even a legitimate fraud. He's an employee of the drilling company who was planted in the town for the sole purpose of being exposed, for the impact this would have on the community's vote.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that any drilling company has ever done anything quite like that, and the implausibility of this scenario totally undermines the credibility of the film. Was that the intention, or are we to assume that it was just an inept attempt to malign the drilling companies?

Ironically, there is a sense in which the film is basically correct. Many of our best-known environmental and conservation organizations have been infiltrated by corporate interests whose purpose is to undermine their political influence, but the way it was done is more subtle than the plot of Promised Land. At one time, environmental groups were funded by their members and occasional wealthy supporters. But their leaders have discovered a new source of revenue—corporations that are among the world's worst polluters. Not only are these organizations funded by corporate donors, their Boards of Directors are dominated by corporate executives.

But these donations come at a heavy price. Have you heard about the deal between the Sierra Club and Clorox bleach? Between IKEA and the World Wildlife Foundation? Between BP and the Nature Conservancy? Environmental groups now engage in commodity certification—putting their green stamp of approval on environmentally-unfriendly products. More importantly, their leaders dismiss necessary solutions—such as the limit of 350 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere that is needed to stabilize the climate—as “unrealistic,” and endorse disastrous “compromise” agreements. It could be argued that the real purpose of these “environmental” groups is to deceive their members into accepting the slow but inevitable destruction of our environment.

But that's not as easy to dramatize as the plot twist at the end of Promised Land.

The Right's Media Pipeline

Last week, while reporting the Public Policy Polling study of Americans' trust in the news media, I mentioned that, contrary to the common stereotype that the media have a “liberal bias,” most studies show the media to be more conservative than the public. Not wanting to review the large and complex literature on the subject, I cited a single study. It's a good study, but one study doesn't make the case. What I prefer to do in this blog is cite new studies of media bias as they come to my attention. Here's a case in point.

Media Matters for America has analyzed all the news coverage of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from August 1 through December 31, 2011, on three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), three cable news networks (CNN, Fox and MSNBC) and six newspaper outlets (Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post). At issue was whether their coverage of the conflict between corporate profits and environmental protection was balanced. What was the mixture of conservative arguments for the pipeline and liberal arguments against it? Previous research had shown journalists to be to the left of the American public on environmental issues, but far to its right on economic issues.

One way to measure media bias is to examine the positions of the experts who were interviewed or cited in the news reports. Each expert was classified as either a pipeline supporter, a pipeline opponent, or neutral. Here are the results:

	Broadcast	Cable	Print
Support the pipeline	79%	59%	45%
Oppose the pipeline	7%	16%	31%
Are Neutral	14%	25%	24%

The six newspapers published 19 editorial and op-eds in favor of the pipeline and 10 opposed.

They then examined how often the media mentioned two specific arguments in favor of the pipeline and two opposition arguments. The two arguments in favor were.

1. Job creation. Pipeline proponents claimed the pipeline would create 20,000 manufacturing and construction jobs and over 600,000 “spinoff” jobs, primarily due to increased energy availability. Independent economists suggested these claims were wildly inflated. The State Department put the number of temporary construction jobs at 5,000-6,000 and said the pipeline would have little effect on long-term employment.
2. Energy security. Advocates of the pipeline said it would reduce our dependence on “foreign” (other than Canadian) oil. Since the pipeline runs from Canada to the Gulf Coast, this ignores the obvious fact that its primary purpose is to facilitate the export of oil to the rest of the world.

The two arguments against the pipeline were:

1. Environmental impact. Opponents pointed out that if the pipeline were to leak, it could do great damage to the Great Plains ecosystem. Furthermore, oil extracted from the Canadian tar sands releases more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel, which will have a disastrous effect on global warming.
2. State Department review. The State Department's review of the pipeline, which recommended construction, was tainted by corruption. The consulting firm which prepared the review also had Transcanada, the owners of the pipeline, as a client. (I'll bet many of you haven't even heard this criticism. You'll see why.)

Here's how often these arguments were mentioned. (Since a news report can mention more than one argument, the figures total more than 100%.)

	Broadcast	Cable	Print
Job creation potential	67%	77%	68%
U. S. energy security	22%	28%	54%
Environmental concerns	17%	34%	65%
Criticism of State Dept. review	6%	7%	20%

The news media passed on Transcanada's job creation estimates five times more often than they mentioned criticism of these numbers by independent economists.

Although all media outlets supported the pipeline, it is important to note that print coverage of the issue came closer to being balanced than television.

Why are the media so biased in favor of the pipeline? In this case, the primary reasons are probably the prevalence of energy company advertising in the media, and the fact that media conglomerates have interlocking financial relationships with energy corporations.

Why do most people falsely believe the media have a “liberal bias,” in spite of the evidence from their own eyes and ears? That's complicated. One reason is that the media keep telling us they have a liberal bias, by reporting anecdotal claims by right wing media critics while suppressing studies such as this one. One study found that the more often the media reported claims that they have a liberal bias, the more the public believed it. What could be better for mass media with a strong conservative bias than to be falsely believed to have a liberal bias? This would imply that if they were “fair and balanced,” they would be even more conservative than they presently are!