AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion

AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion

http://www.aaas.org//spp/dser/02_Events/Conferences/CF_1998_100102_Climate.shtml

News & Events: Conferences & Forums

Dialogue on Global Climate Change
1-2 October 1998 • Washington, DC

The sessions on October 1 included a scientific overview of global climate change, a discussion on religious perspectives on global climate change, and consideration of impacts and equity.

The sessions on October 2 focused on policy considerations and the Kyoto Convention on Climate Change.

Panelists discussed economic challenges in responding to climate change, reviewed the Kyoto convention and its political prospects, and examined the roles of science, religion, values, and economics in crafting public policy on climate change.

Agenda

October 1, 1998

9:00-9:45 Opening Plenary

Moderator: Audrey R. Chapman, Ph.D., AAAS Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion
Welcome- Richard Nicholson, Ph.D., Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Healing the World Together: The Need for Religion-Science Partnership on the Environment - Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, Ph.D., Chancellor Jewish Theological Seminary

10:00-12:30 Scientific Baseline: How Much Do We Know and with What Degree of Certainty

Moderator: George W. Fisher, Ph.D., Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
Michael MacCracken, Ph.D., Director, U.S. National Climate Impacts Assessment
Berrien Moore, Ph.D., Chair, National Academy of Science Panel on Climate Change, University of New Hampshire
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Professor of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1:30-3:15 Religious Perspectives on Climate Change

Moderator: Paul Gorman, Director, National Religious Partnership on the Environment
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ph.D., George Washington University
Rabbi Daniel Swartz, National Religious Partnership on the Environment
James Nash, Ph.D., Executive Director, Churches Center for Theology and Public Policy

3:30-6:00 Impacts and Equity Considerations

Moderator: Alan Miller, Ph.D., Global Environmental Facility
Overview- Joel Scheraga, Ph.D., Director, EPA Global Change Research Program
Impact on Island States- Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Ambassador of Samoa
Impact on Health-Devra Lee Davis, Ph.D.,World Resources Institute
Discussant- The Rev. Richard Randolph, Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Graduate Theological Union, University of California, Berkeley

October 2, 1998

9:00-11:45 Economic Challenges and Opportunities in Responding to Climate Change

Moderator: Richard Morgenstern, Ph.D., Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future
-To Be Named- Global Climate Change Unit, Environment Department, The World Bank Group
Gil Bamford, Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Toyota in the U.S.
William O'Keefe, Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute
Alden Meyer, Director of Government Relations, Union of Concerned Scientists

1:00-2:45 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

Moderator: Mark Frankel, Ph.D., Associate Director, AAAS Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion
Overview of the Protocol and its potential impact - Nancy Kete, Ph.D., World Resources Institute
Religious perspectives on the Kyoto Protocol - David Hallman, World Council of Churches, United Church of Canada
Prospects for ratification - David Goldston, Legislative Director, Office of U.S. Representative Sherwood Boehlert

3:00-5:30 Role of Science, Religion, Values, and Economics in Making Policy on Climate Change: Panel Discussion

Moderator: Prof. William Moomaw, Tufts University
Chris Bernabo, Ph.D., RAND Environmental Sciences and Policy Center
Peter Brown, Ph.D., Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, University of Maryland
Jaydee Hanson, Assistant General Secretary, Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church
Hank Hilton, S.J., Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Loyola College

5:30-6:00 Summing Up and Possibilities for Future Collaboration

Prof. William Moomaw, Tufts University
Audrey R. Chapman, Ph.D., AAAS

Speakers

Mr. Gil Bamford is Vice President of Government, Institutional, and Industry Affairs for Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

Dr. J. Christopher Bernabo is Director of the RAND Environmental Science and Policy Center. He has expertise in the science and policy implications of global climate change, air quality issues, and sustainable development. His recent work includes developing research plans, conducting assessments, evaluating policy, and designing communication strategies for the U.K. and U.S. as well as for states, utilities, and companies.

Dr. Peter G. Brown is Professor and Director of the Environmental Policy specialization for the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs. He has written on population policy and ethics, foreign policy, ethics and policy research, social experimentation, and nuclear waste.

Dr. Audrey R. Chapman serves as the director of the AAAS Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion and the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program. She has written or edited ten books and is currently completing a manuscript on religious ethics at the frontiers of science.

Dr. Devra Lee Davis directs a program for the World Resources Institute examining environmental trends and the resulting effects on human health. Recently, President Clinton appointed Dr. Davis to the newly established Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an independent executive branch agency that investigates, prevents, and mitigates chemical accidents.

Mr. Samuel Fankhauser is an environmental economist in the climate change team at the World Bank's Environment Department. He supports task teams on Global Environment Facility climate change projects. He has been working on climate change issues, in various capacities, for the last eight years.

Dr. George Fisher is Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins University. His recent work has focused on the Earth science aspects of global change, especially those related to questions of sustainability. His interest in sustainability has led him to examine connections between the Earth sciences and theology, and has persuaded him that the two form complementary ways of viewing the issues involved, must both be incorporated into our thinking on sustainability.

Dr. Mark S. Frankel is Director of the AAAS Program on Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law and Associate Director of the AAAS Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion. He has lead responsibility for the Association's activities related to science, ethics and law.

Mr. David Goldston is Legislative Director for Congressman Sherwood Boehlert. Prior to this, he directed a study of industrial, academic, and government research and development for the Council on Competitiveness. Mr. Goldston has also served on the staff of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. Walter E. Grazer is currently the Director of the Environmental Justice Program for the United States Catholic Conference, a position he had held for the past five years. Prior to his service at the USCC, he directed the Social Ministry Program of the Diocese of Richmond after working for the City of Richmond's Commission on Human Relations and the Richmond Community Action Program.

Dr. David G. Hallman has worked on the national staff of the United Church of Canada for over twenty years with responsibility for a range of social justice issues including energy and environment. For the past five years, he has also functioned as the coordinator of the Climate Change Programme of the World Council of Churches.

Mr. Jaydee Hanson is the Assistant General Secretary for the Ministry of God's Creation, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church. Prior to coming to work for the General Board in 1981, he was an International Affairs Specialist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Dr. Francis G. Hilton is a Professor of Economics at Loyola College. His background covers environmental studies, psychology, and theology as well as economics. He has written about and studied various aspects of environmental economics.

Dr. Nancy Kete is the Director of the Climate, Energy and Pollution Program at the World Resources Institute. Dr. Kete recently joined WRI from the U.S. Environmental Protection agency where she was Deputy Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs. She is an expert on energy and environmental problems, and has developed and analyzed domestic and international climate change policy options.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen has been the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T since 1983. Professor Lindzen's scientific interests include the dynamics of the earth's general circulation and climate, the middle atmosphere, and planetary atmospheres. He has contributed to the theory of hydrodynamic instabilities and waves.

Dr. Michael C. MacCracken is executive director of the National Assessment Coordination Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The office is charged with helping to initiate and organize an assessment of the consequences of climate change for the United States. Before his present assignment, he participated in and led a number of atmospheric and environmental research efforts at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, generally in the area of computer modeling of climate and natural and human-induced perturbations to the global environment.

Mr. Alden Meyer is the Director of Government Relations for the Union of Concerned Scientists and Director of its Washington office. He is UCS's principal advocate on policy responses to the threat of global climate change. Mr. Meyer serves as Chairman of the U.S. Climate Action Network of environment, energy, and development groups working to strengthen climate response strategies.

Mr. Alan S. Miller is a Senior Environmental Specialist with the Global Environmental Facility. He is the Acting Team Leader for Climate Change with Responsibilities for the renewable energy project portfolio and climate policy issues.

Dr. William R. Moomaw is Professor of International Environmental Policy and the Director of the International Environment and Resource Policy Program at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is also Director of the Tufts Institute of the Environment and co-director of the Global Development and Environment Institute.

Dr. Berrien Moore III chairs the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Climate Change and is director of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire.

Dr. Richard Morgenstern is a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future, on leave from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an associate assistant administrator for policy, planning and evaluation. His research interests include: climate change policy; validity of information on the costs of environmental policies; the dissemination of new technologies; and the use of economic analyses in decision-making.

Dr. James A. Nash was the Executive Director of the Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy from 1988 to 1998. He is now doing research and consulting and will be teaching social and ecological ethics at the Boston University School of Theology.

Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr has been University Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University since 1984. He has authored over 20 books and 200 articles. His work concerns not only various aspects of Islamic studies but also comparative philosophy and religion, philosophy of art, and the philosophical and religious dimensions of the environmental crisis.

Dr. Richard S. Nicholson is chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Nicholson is also the Publisher of Science, the world' leading scientific journal. Before joining AAAS in 1989, he was Assistant Director for Mathematics and Physical Sciences at NSF.

Mr. William O'Keefe is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Office of the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. O'Keefe's responsibilities cover internal management functions, program planning and coordination, policy development, advocacy, regulatory response, and technical services related to petroleum and products.

Mr. Richard O. Randolph is currently Program Director at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS). Founded in 1981, the Center seeks to promote a creative mutual interaction between contemporary theology and the natural sciences through research, teaching, and public communication. He is currently completing a Ph.D. in ethics. His dissertation examines environmental and economic ethical issues. He is ordained in the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Joel Scheraga has been Director of EPA's Global Change Research Program since early this year. Previously he was Director of the Climate and Policy Assessment Division within EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. He has published numerous articles on environmental economics, the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, and the integration of science and policy.

Dr. Ismar Schorsch is the sixth chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and it Rabbi Herman Abramovitz Professor of Jewish History. He helped create the National Religious Partnership for the Environment and is a top scholar in the field of modern Jewish history.

Ambassador Tuiloma Neroni Slade represents the Independent State of Samoa to the UN and is concurrently Ambassador to the U.S. He has specialist background and interest in international law issues, including environmental law and development.

Rabbi Daniel Swartz serves as Associate Director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. He oversees NRPE's Washington Office and its public policy work, where he helps facilitate the addressing of key environmental values debates from a religious perspective.

Summary

Opening Plenary
The Dialog opened with warm welcomes from Richard Nicholson, Executive Officer of the AAAS, and Audrey R. Chapman, Director of the AAAS Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion. Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, then presented the plenary address on the topic "Healing the World Together: The Need for Religion-Science Partnership on the Environment."

Rabbi Schorsch began by reflecting upon the work of the Religious Partnership on the Environment, now a decade old. The Partnership is an interfaith association involving Roman Catholics, the National Council of Churches, the evangelical Christian community and the Jewish community, which seeks to present common environmental concerns of these religious communities to Congress and other governmental policy makers. Believing that knowledge by itself will not necessarily lead us to do the right thing, these religious communities are seeking a moral imperative for a more responsible environmental policy.

Rabbi Schorsch noted that environmental concerns lie at the very heart of Judaism. This is the season in the Jewish ritual calendar for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Among other things it is a time to remember that the mission of Judaism is to make human beings morally better. Environmental issues often involve issues of justice. The consequences of environmental degradation bear especially heavily on the poor.

The celebration of Sukkot, a harvest festival, calls us to remember our dependency on the bounty of the earth. It is an exercise in humility. We must recognize that one year's bounty does not guarantee the next. The account of creation in the first chapter of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible should be taught not as science but as a moral perspective, reminding us that humanity is not sovereign in the world. The Sabbath, the seventh day of rest, is a "non-natural" restriction of human activity. It is testimony that human beings are stewards, not masters of nature. On one day out of seven we are to step back and give homage to the Creator and to God's creation, devoting ourselves to the inner life rather than the outer.

Rabbi Schorsch found a similar constraint on human action in relation to nature in the traditions about eating meat. Prior to the Noahcian flood human beings were not permitted to eat meat. Even after that stricture was relaxed, there were specific injunctions about how to kill cattle and how to prepare meat. The tradition holds that although the lives of other creatures may be taken in order to sustain human life, the taking of life is not a human birthright.

The Genesis 2 account of Adam and Eve portrays them as having been given the task of tending or caring for the Garden of Eden. Here again not everything is permitted. There is at least one tree, the fruit of which they may not eat. These traditions illustrate that Judaism is a religion of constraints. Human beings tend to be motivated by a desire for more, that more is better. The Jewish tradition claims that human perfection is possible only in a system of voluntary constraints, and that discipline leads to a greater freedom which is the foundation of a superior consciousness.

In the discussion following his presentation, Rabbi Schorsch noted that the religious community has not always been "out in front" on important moral and policy issues of the day. He suggested that the partnership between science and religion on environmental issues has been good for the religious communities. It has helped the religious communities deepen their understanding of their faiths by reappropriating elements of their traditions which call us to a more responsible relationship with the earth. He affirmed the scientific community was becoming more aware that technological and industrial progress was a mixed blessing, not an unmitigated good. It also sees that scientific knowledge and social engineering alone cannot adequately address issues of environmental degradation. We need a moral imperative to motivate appropriate use of new knowledge and development of policies and social practices which will effectively address environmental issues. Religious communities can help to generate that motivation.

First Panel
Scientific Baseline: How Much Do We Know and with What Degree of Certainty
The panel was moderated by George Fisher (Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University) and comprised of Michael MacCracken (Director, U.S. National Climate Impacts Assessment), Berrien Moore (Chair, National Academy of Science Committee on Global Change Research, University of New Hampshire) and Richard Lindzen (Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

George Fisher introduced the session by noting that the Apollo photographs of Earth had helped us to see Earth as a fertile garden set against the desolate emptiness of space, an isolated system in which all parts are interdependent. He observed that this first session was intended to outline what we know about that system and what we do not know, acknowledging that though parts of the system are well understood, substantial uncertainties remain in some areas.

Michael MacCracken began with an Apollo picture of Earthrise from the Moon and noted that humans, who had been merely passengers on spaceship Earth for eons, are now beginning to alter global climatic systems. Anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere are changing Earth's heat budget. Special attention has focused on the amount of atmospheric CO₂. A healthy biosphere requires at least 200 parts per million (ppm) CO₂ in the atmosphere, but we are now approaching twice that amount. Although it is easy to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the link between atmospheric CO₂ and Earth's temperature is harder to determine.

MacCracken stated that the global average temperature has risen about 0.5^oC (1^oF) in this century, a change confirmed by a rise in ocean surface temperatures, melting of alpine glacier systems, and a rise in ocean levels in addition to the measured change in average temperature. Although the human contribution to this warming is difficult to assess statistically, if temperature continues to increase at current rates, within a century or two Earth's temperature will be about what it was 50 million years ago (mya), producing a sea-level rise of about 50 centimeters (about 20 inches), shifts in North Atlantic circulation patterns, and possibly an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events. It seems likely that temperature and precipitation in the U.S. would increase.

MacCracken identified several factors which must be considered when interpreting the scientific data from a policy perspective. First, the use of fossil fuels has been and continues to be great benefit to society. Those who depend upon using fossil fuels will naturally demand that data used as the basis for policy changes be as certain as possible.

However, there is only one Earth. Changing energy use too slowly may have serious climatic consequences, and prudence suggests that we take some steps immediately. Those steps should take full account of the potential for new or underutilized technologies to stabilize CO₂ levels. Finally, there are a host of issues concerning equity with respect to energy consumption and climatic impacts. These are primarily issues of value for which scientists can provide information or data but about which scientists have no special expertise.

Berrien Moore provided a review of things we know for sure, things we think we know, and things we are not sure about with respect to the global carbon cycle. It is clear that there has been a steady increase of co2 in the atmosphere. until 1740 or about the beginning of the industrial revolution there was a quasi steady state of co2 . between 1740 and 1860 there was a slight rise. after 1860, co₂ levels have increased more rapidly, due to increased burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other changes in land use and land.

Regulating the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is very difficult; because of the long lifetime of CO₂ in the atmosphere; stabilization of CO₂ concentrations will require far more than stabilization of emissions_. The policy objectives established at Kyoto in 1998 are non-trivial.

Richard Lindzen offered a contrasting view of the issues. He noted that there is a difference between concern for environmental quality and the issue of global warming. Everyone is rightly concerned about air pollution but there is considerable disagreement as to whether global warming is even an issue. Discussion has been made more difficult by politicization of this issue; there is a tendency for people to hear what they want to hear. The political process that scientific data be simplified, but simplification can become oversimplification and can also conceal non-scientific biases. As a consequence charts and graphs drawn in certain ways can give an impression of results that the data themselves do not warrant.

A case in point is the confusion over the use of the phrase "warming" to refer to the change in global temperature as opposed to man's role in causing such a change. Only the latter is of concern from the policy perspective, and the data do not provide much basis for determining man's contribution.

With respect to policy matters, one assessment is that implementation of the Kyoto protocol would produce changes which are smaller than natural variability and so inconsequential. At the same time these policies can be viewed politically rather than scientifically as an instance in which a call for action overwhelms rational assessment. Many proposed actions provide a form of surrogate taxation, which is often popular with governments who recognize the unpopularity of explicit taxes. Such "tax farming" is also frequently profitable to industry, though not consumers. It provides "bonuses" for research and development in alternative energy sources. So, apart from any scientific justification, the Kyoto recommendations serve the economic/political interests of a variety of groups.

Movements which appear to be self-evidently moral can come to be viewed as the opposite by subsequent generations. For example, Lindzen suggested that eugenics could be viewed as the environmentalism of the first third of this century. It too claimed to be necessitated by science. As an illustration he quoted a statement made in the 1930's by the religious leader Harry Emerson Fosdick supporting eugenics. He also cited a National Research Council statement that uncertainties should not be ignored because they could result in erroneous actions.

In the panel discussion which followed, MacCracken responded to Lindzen by pointing to the need to apply different levels of "certainty" to different circumstances. When testing hypotheses, scientists use a very strict standard. But that level of evidence may not be essential for developing responsible public policy. Making a legal analogy, he suggested that scientists testing hypotheses tend to use the criterion of criminal litigation, "beyond a reasonable doubt." Policy making should be seen as more like civil litigation, where "preponderance of evidence" is the standard. In the current state of scientific knowledge, the "balance of evidence" criterion can provide useful scientific insight to policy makers.

A questioner from the floor asked whether there was a scientific consensus on these issues. Lindzen responded that "consensus" was a problematic concept. It was often used to intimidate those with different views and to sway opinion. For example, there is consensus that there has been a measurable increase in the average global temperature. However, there is no scientific consensus on what is or will be the climatic impact of this increase. The idea of consensus, he suggested, can become a wide brush which goes beyond the actual level of agreement.

MacCracken commented that temperature increase has been a scientific issue for over 100 years, and first appeared on the Presidential agenda in 1965.

A questioner observed that scientific data is always interpreted within particular world views, identified two sets of world view markers, and asked the panelists to identify themselves in relation to them. The first set (I) had to do with judgments about preferred forms of political/economic organization: (1) hierarchy, (2) free-market, (3) egalitarian. The second set (II) reflected judgments as to the character of the atmospheric system: (1) fragile, (2) robust, (3) capable of extreme damage but self repairing. The panelists declared themselves as follows: Lindzen, I-2, II-between 2 and 3; Fisher, I-3, II-between 2 and 3; Moore, I-between 2 and 3, II-between 2 and 3; MacCracken, I-between 2 and 3, II-3.

A questioner asked whether actions called for by Article II of the Kyoto Protocol are responsible. Moore responded that the Article reflected what we would like to do, but that we need to pay attention to economic consequences, particularly for developing countries. there are strategies to keep atmospheric co2 concentrations below three times the current level, but such levels are outside the historical envelope, and so we cannot compare policies on the basis of alternative results.

Another questioner asked what level of scientific certainty was needed in order to justify policy changes. Lindzen responded that virtually every publicized statement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the current state of affairs has been retracted by the authors. Nevertheless, he believed that it is possible to test the adequacy of various models of climate change. He expressed concern that emotions often held sway over science. The issue of ozone depletion, while significantly justifiable, was not presented to the public in terms of a comprehensible scientific risk assessment. The extension of scientific concern from part of an issue to another is not always justified. Thus, the epidemiological arguments correlating smoking and lung cancer are compelling, but so-called scientific arguments for public policies related to secondhand smoke are, in his judgment, an abuse of science.

It was noted from the floor that the Kyoto Protocol or any such policy instrument was only part of the available solution with respect to global climate change. If the current science reflects some of the relevant social factors influencing climate, then there are many voluntary measures that can be taken without international agreement.

A questioner asked how, if one used the "balance of evidence" criteria, one would challenge such a judgment. MacCracken suggested that at present the human component of global warming is understood at about 95% certainty. Another way to judge the issue would be to ask to what extent the observed warming can be due to non-human natural processes. Lindzen urged everyone to read the relevant IPCC chapters that, though he judged them to be wrong and biased in places, were much more substantive and balanced than the policymaker's summaries implied. MacCracken responded with the observation that the IPCC is often portrayed as a "super-green" organization. But in his judgment that is not a fair characterization. He considers some of the assumptions made by the IPCC in its analysis "conservative."

Second Panel - Religious Perspectives on Climate Change - This panel was moderated by Walter E. Glazer (Director, Environmental Justice Program, U.S. Catholic Conference) and consisted of Seyyed Hossein Nasr (University Professor of Islamic Studies, George Washington University), Rabbi Daniel Swartz (Associate Director, National Religious Partnership for the Environment) and James Nash (former Executive Director, Church's Center for Theology and Public Policy; adjunct faculty, School of Theology, Boston University).

Seyyed Nasr noted that as a Muslim he was speaking on behalf of 1/5 to 1/6 of the human beings on Earth. Islamic science is based on harmony between the spiritual and material domains. Islamic modernists and fundamentalists accept western science on its own terms, but "traditional" Muslims insist on a sacred as well as a scientific understanding of nature, and rely on traditional sciences of nature not just western science.

For many in the West religion is one aspect of life among others. In the Islamic world religion is a comprehensive framework within which all of life is lived. As a consequence, religious influence on public policy can be very significant. For example, at the time of the revolution in Iran, the birth rate accelerated sharply at first, but declined as soon as religious leaders noted the increase and pronounced the rate too high.

In the area of the environment, Muslims are most concerned about environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity. Several principles underlie the "traditional" Muslim perspective on the environment. First, only the rights of God are absolute; the post-Renaissance European idea that human beings have absolute rights over the Earth never took hold in the Islamic world. Second, in Islam there is a religious understanding of the order of nature. Nasr declared that you cannot have an ethic of the environment without a religious understanding of the order of nature. That understanding need not obviate a scientific understanding of nature, but it does hold that a scientific view does not exhaust the full significance of the order of nature. The understanding of nature as sacred is essential, not simply a sentimental appellation being added to a scientific understanding.

Third, Nasr indicated that on a moral level Islam does not accept the position that all of the appetites of human beings should be satisfied. Today, it is not possible to have a consumer society without greed; people need to be stimulated to want what they do not have and to want more of what they do have. From an Islamic perspective, one of the functions of religion is to put brakes on the soul's desire for more and more possessions and more and more activity. Happiness is not to be found internally, not externally.

Rabbi Daniel Swartz noted that the Hebrew Bible says rele nothing directly about greenhouse gases but does provide ethical principles which are vant to environmental issues. These are not principles which science can discover or provide. One such principle is an affirmation of the goodness of the world. What must be avoided is the sin of ingratitude whereby that goodness is devalued by means of environmental degradation. A second principle is that of stewardship or "vice-regency," serving as guardian of that which we do not own. In the second chapter of Genesis, humans are charged to "till and tend" the land, sometimes translated "give service to the land." Rabbi Swartz identified a third principle of intergenerational equity, meaning to avoid the sin of shortsightedness and recognize that the choices we make have consequences from generation to generation. Fourthly, he noted the importance of prudence when faced with uncertainty, and of avoiding the sins of complacency, imprudence and denial. When considering future impacts of a course of action we must consider not only the likelihood of a particular outcome, but also the scope of that outcome and its likely irreversibility. A fifth principle is that of economy or the avoidance of the sin of greed or idolatrous worship of wealth. He asked "on whose behalf is the economy to be managed'" In the Jewish tradition the economy itself is seen as amoral. Moral judgment has to do with ends, and the moral question is that of the end to which the environment is managed. There is also the principle of international responsibility, derived from the Jewish tradition of avoiding callousness toward the stranger. A related principle is that of exercising concern for the "least of these" or the most vulnerable, and about avoiding the sin of hubris or pride.

There is a tendency in America to adopt a "Lone Ranger" ethic according to which each individual is seen as an isolated point of moral decision making. Judaism in contrast holds to a communitarian ethic in which the social setting and the internal dynamics of the community are also relevant to the determination of what is judged to be moral. So rules can provide only a proximate guide to morality, and sometimes need to be changed. Fairness is a primary value to be considered. Determining the cost of a decision, who pays, how much and when are central to making a moral decision.

James Nash began by affirming that global warming is a moral problem to the extent that it is human induced or enhanced. Because of the potential climatic consequences which can follow, a casual attitude toward global warming ought to be viewed as sin. Though technical information is relevant to understanding global warming, the issue is not simply a technical matter to be addressed by technical elites alone.

Nash identified six conditions required for an adequate response to global warming. First, it needs to be recognized that the problem is not just warming but any significant changes in the atmosphere. Second, moral compartmentalization needs to be avoided. A holistic response will need to address related social and economic issues as well as those of energy use or emissions. Third, the social and ecological relevance of older values such as frugality, thrift, moderation and temperance should be highlighted. These are not mere synonyms for asceticism; they are preconditions to the capacity for just and generous sharing. Fourth is the need for international cooperation is a fourth condition without which no response can be adequately moral. Fifth is moral comprehensiveness, which requires fair consideration to all parties with a stake in the outcome. The final condition is that the issues need to be considered in the context of high risk taking. Failure to act is not morally neutral. Given levels of potential harm that can be brought on by global warming and other atmospheric change, decisive action of some sort may be the only moral course.

A member of the audience noted that when people in the developing world are given a little electrical energy, they refrigerate medicine. He suggested that many of the countries who chose not to be a part of the Kyoto Protocol did so because they have little access to needed energy. There is a very complex relationship, he proposed, between moral injunctions about population and the need for electrical energy.

Rabbi Swartz reemphasized the need to give attention to those who are most vulnerable, and suggested that it was the duty of the developed world to help provide non-fossil fuel energy resources to the developing world. Nash added that recognition that we live on a planet of finite resources demands that we address the responsibility of those with sufficient resources to assure sufficiency for those who are without. Nasr went further to propose that there is no solution to these issues as long as the developed world continues to behave as it has. It is not possible for all the nations of the world to behave as the developed world does, and so the solution has to begin in the developed world, where the problem begins.

A member of the audience asked whether we shouldn’t try to discern God's will even if greenhouse gas emissions were not a problem. Nash indicated that he would never try to say what God wants. In his view there were good pragmatic reasons to seek avoiding harm in relation to environmental conditions. Rabbi Swartz stated that from a Jewish perspective it is important to try to do what God wants, while admitting our uncertainty. To the extent that we can discern the long term consequence of our actions, there is an obligation to avoid undercutting future sustainability. Nasr suggested that God mandates that we live in harmony with nature, because to do so is to be in harmony with God. A lack of harmony with nature is evidence for a lack of harmony with God.

An anthropologist in the audience suggested that much of the discussion so far had reflected an us-versus-them attitude in which religion was equated with ideology, theology or systems of morality. But religion, she argued, needed to be viewed in social and political terms as well as ideological ones. Nash confessed that he had not heard these assumptions in the discussion so far. He proposed that until recently the Christian communities have been largely oblivious to environmental issues whether in terms of theology or social practice. Rabbi Swartz suggested that in general the debate in the political sphere has been shallow. One contribution of the religious community can be to increase the moral depth of the debate.

Another member of the audience again raised the issue of population growth. He asked its about importance and how the religious communities were addressing it. Nasr stated that although Islam and most of the world's people believed large families were a virtue, that view is changing. However, he emphasized that population by itself is an insufficient measure of environmental impact; attention must be paid to per capita impact. Those in the developed world have a far greater environmental impact per capita than those in the developing world. Policy proposals have to address not only population numbers but also the consumption rates of particular populations.

Third Panel - Impacts and Equity Considerations - This panel was moderated by Alan Miller (Senior Environmental Specialist, Global Environmental Facility) and consisted of Joel Scheraga (Director, EPA Global Change Research Program), Ambassador Tuiloma Neroni Slade (Ambassador of Samoa), Devra Lee Davis (Program Director, World Resources Institute) and, as a discussant, Richard Randolph (Program Director, Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences).

Joel Scheraga began with an overview of potential consequences of global climate change. At the outset he noted that although there are substantial uncertainties, there is sufficient understanding to anticipate that global and regional effects will be significant. At the same time there will be positive as well as negative effects, and both types need to be considered. There will also be significant distributional effects; that is, not everyone, every region or every segment of particular societies will be affected in the same way.

What seems clear from the science side is that without changes in human behavior we are headed toward uncertain territory in terms of co2 concentrations. it also seems clear that, if the past is a guide to the future, then changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will not be uniform either globally or regionally (e.g., within the u.s.).

Scheraga identified six types of impacts: (1) health, (2) agricultural, (3) forest/land cover, (4) water resources, (5) coastal areas, (6) species and natural areas. What is especially daunting is that all of these changes will occur at the same time.

With respect to human health, impacts will be direct (e.g. heat related) and indirect (e.g., changed ecosystems which affect the territories and life cycles of disease vectors and pathogens). The poor, the very young, and the elderly will be most vulnerable.

He stated that agricultural impacts are more likely to be substantial and are most likely to impact developing countries. Though forests and land cover would tend to move with favorable climatically zones, high rates of climate change and artificial obstacles in the way may inhibit the natural ability of plants to migrate. These problems also bear upon the issue of biodiversity in general and natural areas in particular.

Water resources may be expected to suffer both direct and indirect effects, especially in coastal areas. By 2100 there is a 50% chance that there could be a sea level rise of 20 inches at New York City and a rise of 55 inches at the Louisiana coast. Every coastal country will have some degree of vulnerability to flooding of coastal property and to saline encroachment upon wetlands.

Ambassador Slade noted that the ocean exerts a great influence physically, economically and culturally on small island nations. Small island ecosystems are very sensitive to climate change and play vital roles in the economies of island nations. A sea level rise of 0.5-1 meter would inundate some low lying small island states and would impact others critically. Salt water intrusion into fresh water resources is a related threat. Increases in sea level could also damage or destroy important cultural sites. Ambassador Slade also pointed out that climatic changes which lead to more intense cyclonic storms could be devastating.

The economies of small island states tend to depend upon agriculture and tourism. Both could be very adversely effected by climate changes. Fisheries are also vulnerable to changes in the patterns of ocean surface temperatures. He saw only three choices for small island states apparently: (1) to retreat or abandon land and structures, (2) to mitigate the changes, or (3) to protect against the changes through adaptation. In the view of the small island states mitigation and adaptation need to go hand in hand. Projects by the small island states to develop adaptive capabilities are underway, although efforts to reduce emissions have fallen behind schedule.

devra davis pointed out that in addition to the issues of co2 emissions which result from the burning of fossil fuels, there is also the problem of the pollution of the atmosphere with very fine particles. studies have shown that such air borne particles can travel thousands of miles. such pollution problems are acute in the developing world and their effects are particularly hard on the poor in general and especially poor children.

Air pollution can increase the death rate of a region of high concentration of particulate matter by 17%. Studies show that high levels of pollution reduce the long term growth of children, worsens asthma and increases the likelihood and effect of chronic lung diseases. Today, of the ten cities in the world with the greatest particulate pollution, eight of them are in China.

Recently published studies have indicated that small reductions in co2 emissions can significantly reduce particulate pollution. so there is the potential for "no regret" policies in which reductions of co2 emissions to ameliorate climate change can also have the collateral effect of reducing air pollution.

Richard Randolph identified four norms which should shape policy discussions of global climate change. The first was sustainability, the long term well-being of the environment. The second was solidarity with those who are most vulnerable, a perspective which raises equity issues with respect to both future human generations and non-human species. The third norm was participation; all those likely to be affected by a policy should participate in the formation of that policy. This issue involves socioeconomic exclusion as well as knowledge exclusion; the relevant science should be accessible to everyone with a stake in the outcome. The fourth norm was that of prudence. In cases where there is a significant degree of uncertainty, privilege should be given to the course of action which is safest.

In the discussion which followed, Scheraga pointed out that several types of information are useful to policy makers and should be made available to them. For example, purely economic methods of discounting value are problematic when trying to assess intergenerational relationship; we need to identify costs for particular courses of action over time and for different population groups.

Randolph suggested that an example of the complexity of these issues can be seen, in development occurring in the Amazon rainforest. This global carbon cycle resource is in the process of being destroyed for the sake of the economic development of the people there. If the global community asks these people to refrain from further cutting of the rainforest for the sake of global climatic stability and sustainable economic development, it would seem just that be compensated economically for this "service."

Ambassador Slade suggested that the issue of developmental sustainability is problematic: governments do not know how to deal with it internally, and the problem is exacerbated by the current level of international distrust.

A member of the audience proposed raising the level of affluence of the developing world so that the people there could afford the technologies (e.g., air conditioning) which could mitigate the climate change problems (e.g., heat stress). Scheraga responded that care must be taken how one applies a technological fix since it may prove to be the wrong solution to the problem at hand and may make things worse. For example, using air conditioning to mitigate effects of heat stress may make the problem worse if the source of energy for the air-conditioning is a coal burning power plant adding co2 and particulates to the atmosphere. he cautioned against being too cavalier about our technological ability to offset stresses resulting from climate change.

Davis noted that because coal-fueled power plants in China operate at only 10% efficiency, China's plans to construct power plants present a real opportunity to improve energy efficiency by using newer technologies.

Miller noted the difficulty of providing people with incentives to act against what seems to be their immediate interests. Randolph suggested that the religious communities could play a role in encouraging the longer view..

Fisher noted that models of shifts in agricultural patterns due to climate change need to take into account the various soil types involved. Scheraga added concerns about the agricultural impact of climate change reflect uncertainties about the sensitivity of crops not only to different soil types but also to climatic variability, incidence of pests, and changes in water resources.

A member of the audience asked how to educate the general public and particularly the young about these issues. Davis pointed out that the World Resources Institute had developed curricular materials on health and the environment. Ambassador Slade suggested that public education is an often neglected obligation of all the parties involved.

Another member of the audience indicated that there seemed to be an asymmetry between the level of uncertainty and the severity of possible impacts. Also in the mix is the increasing economic disparity between developed and developing nations. Scheraga suggested that the struggle is whether we as an increasingly global society will decide to define "social well-being" in terns of jobs or in terms of broader parameters.

Fourth Panel
Economic Challenges and Opportunities in Responding to Climate Change
This panel was moderated by Richard Morgenstern (Visiting Scholar, Resources for the Future) and comprised of Sam Fankhauser (Climate Change Team, Environmental Department, The World Bank), Gil Bamford (Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Toyota in America), William O'Keefe (Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute) and Alden Meyer (Director of Government Relations, Union of Concerned Scientists). Richard Morgenstern indicated that the panel would focus on three subjects: The Kyoto Protocol, the upcoming Buenos Aires meeting, and unilateral domestic actions which could help establish early common ground.

Sam Fankhauser began by suggesting that if the current trends in climate change go unabated, there might be a Gross Domestic Product loss of 1.5-2.5% when atmospheric co2 doubles in the latter half of the next century. the developing countries would be particularly vulnerable. a continent like africa could lose as much as 9% of gdp. timing is important; that is, it is best to make changes in the energy economy as old capital is replaced and new technological alternatives become available. although there are significant uncertainties and so a need for better information, the action horizons for abating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are relatively short given that there is already an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations working its way into the natural system due to prior emissions.

One approach to the problem is to focus on win-win options. For example, current estimates are that if we continue business as usual, the carbon level will have tripled to 2,400 mt by about 2020. However, appropriate sector reforms in the Chinese economy, which have value in their own right quite apart from climate change issues, could reduce that level to 1,600 mt. Another option is to promote market transformation by facilitating market entry of renewable energy sources and innovative energy efficient technologies. The use of emission caps, eventually including developing countries, is another possibility. But determining those caps also needs to take into account the fact that the developing world uses much less energy than the developed world. Difficulties in abatement costs between countries suggest the value of some system of emission trading.

Gil Bamford began by indicating that he thought that the best idea to come out of Kyoto was that of the "clean development mechanism" (CDM). At the same time he expressed disappointment both at the difficulty of agreeing on the level of participation by developing countries and the lack of appreciation for the need to sustain economic growth in the developed world while reducing emissions. He looked forward to the Buenos Aires meeting as the opportunity to refine how the CDM would work and how the developing countries would be involved.

He then turned his remarks to Toyota's development of an alternative fuel car, the Prius. The five-passenger car is a hybrid with both an electric motor (drawing on a small nickel metal hydride battery) and a 1.5 liter internal combustion engine. It has regenerating brakes and a very sophisticated computer operating system. It has a top speed of 66 miles per hour. The car is priced at about $16,000. Through August of 1998 there were pre-sales of 8,000 cars. When production is up and running it is expected that the production rate will be 2,000 cars per month. In order to enter upon such a venture a number of economic challenges have to be addressed. A careful cost analysis is required which includes all fixed costs. Another challenge is that the market size is difficult to forecast given the innovative nature of the technology. It is also necessary to overcome what is often a typical risk-averse corporate culture. The corporation needs to have a broad vision. Top management needs to be committed and involved and must be willing to allocate scarce research and development resources to the project. Bamford reported that when the Prius debuted at the 1998 Detroit Auto Show in January there was significant skepticism in the industry. There were doubts about where the market would be, who the customer would be and what the volume of sales could be. The initial reaction by a number of competitors was that the price of the car would not cover Toyota's research and development costs. However, experience with the Prius so far suggests that Toyota had a better idea about the market potential for such a product and knew its customer better because real world feedback was built into the development process.

William O'Keefe began by quoting Adam Smith as moral philosopher, "Trust but verify." With respect to the Kyoto Protocol he indicated that cutting carbon emissions at the proposed rate in a little over a decade would significantly reduce economic growth and would cost the average American family $2,000 per year. He noted that this estimate was much larger than that being used by the Administration ($70-100 per year). He attributed most of the difference to assumptions made by the Council of Economic Advisors, which he thought dubious. For example, they assumed that emissions trading would be in place despite the absence of any infrastructure for such a system.

Fundamental disagreements about the terms of the Protocol, such as the non-participation of the developing countries, also raise serious problems, and expressed little hope that the Buenos Aires meeting would produce anything constructive. He also thought that it would be impossible to transform fuel use in the power industry in time to reduce carbon emissions according to the proposed schedule.

He reminded the audience that change always has costs and that there were no cost-free solutions. He proposed a set of guidelines for the development of policies related to climate change: (1) Be slow to commit to a course of action and, when committed, take small steps; (2) invest in information to reduce the level of uncertainty; (3) look for "no regret" policies, those which cause no damage even if they turn out to be mistaken; (4) consider alternatives rather than jumping on bandwagons.

Alden Meyer indicated that he thought the Kyoto Protocol was a minimal and essential first step despite its imperfections. He attributed many of the negative assessments of the Protocol to top down analyses based on worst case assumptions. Seven such assumptions account for 80% of the difference between positive and negative assessments of Kyoto. Bottom up analyses give different results. He also noted that issues other than climate change favor reducing emissions, and suggested that the central issue would be whether there was the political will to put any policy decisions into effect.

Meyer though it unrealistic to expect significant agreements at the Buenos Aires meeting, but suggested that a work plan and target dates might be established, and that the meeting could allow further development of flexibility mechanisms.

Domestically, he suggested that energy efficiency through research and development and tax incentives might produce voluntary reductions in emissions and that credits for early emission reductions by industry might help.

A member of the audience asked why the American Petroleum Institute (API) was spending $5,000,000 to train scientists to debunk climate change in the public media. O'Keefe's response was that member companies of the API were sponsoring climate research at such prestigious institutions as MIT. The article in the New York Times which reported the so-called scientist training program was based on a paper written by an API employee discussing what could be done to get more balanced coverage of the issues in the public media or popular press. It did not represent an actual training program. The questioner responded by asking whether the recent API ad campaign against the Kyoto Protocol should be viewed as "balanced." O'Keefe responded that the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote had declined to sign a treaty which was not effectively global. The earlier Rio Treaty had standards but called for voluntary compliance. Meyer interjected that while in the long term climate control policies have to be global in order to work, it is not necessary that they be global immediately.

An audience member expressed disappointment that there seemed to be no clear connection between the analysis of the present state of climate modeling and policies advocating limitations on greenhouse gas emissions and suggested that because future benefits may not come to pass their value cannot be used to discount present costs. Fankhauser responded that people seemed willing to give up 1.5-2.5% of the GDP to avoid anticipated impacts. O'Keefe noted that it was not clear that the most deleterious of possible impacts would occur and suggested it would be better to commit $40,000,000 to support the poor today than to commit such an amount now for the sake of some possible future benefit to the poor. Again, Fankhauser emphasized that discounting is very difficult.

An audience member pointed out that only the developed world has idea that there is plenty of time to make critical decisions. Societies shaped by Hindu, Confucius or Buddhist perspectives may have very different perspectives on technological development. He also noted that economic choices made in the U.S. sometimes reflect questionable priorities (e.g., Americans spend more on Christmas decorations than on foreign aid). O'Keefe suggested that there is the need to create a "climate" which will allow the developing countries to raise the level of their economies. He noted that there was probably enough oil in known reserves to serve for about half a century and that alternatives to fossil fuels are not yet economically attractive. Many are reluctant to use nuclear energy as a way to reduce carbon output.

Bamford indicated that Toyota was looking toward growing markets in India and China as opportunities to introduce new automotive technologies. Toyota is agnostic about climate change but concerned about pollution at the tailpipe. Fankhauser suggested that perhaps it was appropriate to for the developed countries to bear the cost of technological development until new products are affordable for developing countries.

O'Keefe stated that although he had no idea what the eventual energy mix would be, he was confident that fossil fuels would provide more than half of the energy used in 2050. Fankhauser emphasized the importance of including small-scale technology in discussions about future energy options.

A questioner asked who was likely to buy the Prius. Bamford responded that young people seem interested in new technology, but find vehicles powered by electricity alone limited by their need for frequent recharging and their long recharge time. The Prius is priced to appeal to that market and needs to be seen as a transitional technology.

An audience member asked whether O'Keefe's position reflected that of British Petroleum (BP). O'Keefe indicated that he was representing was API's position but sensed that BP's position was not greatly different. He noted that BP had set its own internal targets and that in Europe there was closer collaboration between industry and government.

A questioner wondered what sort of cultural change at Toyota had lead it to explore alternative fuels and commented that though API did remarkable work on some problems, a few of its projections had been wrong, citing projections that use of unleaded gasoline would increase gas prices markedly. O'Keefe acknowledged that API had been "dead wrong" on that issue but had learned from past mistakes and refined its analytic capacities. Responding to the question about corporate culture in Toyota, Bamford indicated that part of the motivation is the desire to eliminate waste of material, personnel, and time. One example of this effort is the "just-in-time" inventory concept which moves away from stockpiling large numbers of items against a time when they may needed and instead times the availability of items to coincide with when they are needed.

O'Keefe noted that no corporation can be static, and that all have learned a lot since the beginning of the environmental movement. He saw environmental ethics as deeply embedded in every corporation today. However, the oil industry has problems because there is a gap between public perception of industry behavior on environmental issues and actual practice. The current debate, he suggested, is not whether there are some risks but whether we face severe environmental outcomes if we do not change our current ways.

Fifth Panel
The Kyoto Climate Protocol
This panel was moderated by Mark Frankel (Associate Director, AAAS Program of Dialogue Between Science and Religion) and comprised of Nancy Kete (Director; Climate, Energy and Pollution Program; World Resources Institute), David Hallman (Coordinator, Climate Change Programme, World Council of Churches) and David Goldston (Legislative Director, Office of U.S. Representative Sherwood Boehlert).

Nancy Kete provided an overview of the process leading up to the Kyoto Climate Protocol and outlined the next steps. She noted at the outset that efforts to establish climate control policies are made especially difficult by the profound politicization of North/South relationships.

Negotiations on climate control have been going on since the Rio Earth Summit of June,1992. The United Nations Framework Convention which followed established that nations would commit to (1) stabilizing greenhouse gases, (2) establishing "common w but differentiated responsibilities", and (3) reducing emission by the developed world to 1990 levels by 2000. This last goal will not be achieved.

Additional meetings in 1995 and 1996 led to the December 1997 meeting in Kyoto, which established a Protocol calling for a commitment by countries of the developed world to binding limits of greenhouse gas emissions of 5% below 1990 levels. Most means for implementation, including mechanisms to provide credibility and flexibility, are yet to be decided.

The meeting scheduled for November 1998 in Buenos Aires will address unresolved issues such as issues of "domestic action," steps which can be taken unilaterally. One key question is whether progress in emission reduction can be demonstrated by 2005. Discussion will also focus on credibility mechanisms for accounting, accountability, addressing non-compliance and confidence building. Flexibility mechanisms which include the clean development mechanisms and emission trading will also be on the agenda.

According to Kete the clean development mechanism (CDM) for the developing world was the major surprise of Kyoto. CDM is a framework for projects to be jointly implemented by developed and developing countries which can promote sustainable development, advance the ultimate objective of overall emission reduction, and contribute to compliance by the developed countries. The details remain to be decided, but there is growing support for the CDM in developing countries with some key exceptions such as China and India.

If the CDM continues to gain support then the surprise of Kyoto could become the success of Buenos Aires. It could lead to an agreement to fast track the work program. It could result in a short list of eligible CDM projects. t could lead to an agreement to begin such projects in 2000 even if the Kyoto Protocol has not entered into force. Or, the whole initiative might flounder in a protracted debate over "voluntary commitments".

Structure and governance are key issues in defining the CDM. The exact rules of the game will be crucial. How will eligibility be determined' What measures will be used' Who will do the accrediting' What levies will be assessed' How will linkages be established between compliance accounting and emissions trading' Progress in establishing the CDM could redirect capital flows to more sustainable development projects and infrastructures in the developing countries. It could shape future trends in emissions in these countries. It could facilitate future quantitative commitments. It could represent an international agreement with significant meaning.

Within the American political process there are two opposing views. One holds that the developing countries must accept emission limits (e.g., no later that 2015). Another holds that because the developed countries are primarily responsible for current greenhouse gas concentrations they must take the lead in emission reduction.

Kete suggested that although per capita emission standards have some relevance, policy should not be shaped on the basis of them alone. In the developing countries, increases in emissions should be designed to provide basic services to underserved populations not to fuel a consumer culture.

Mechanisms for compliance and enforcement may be the most important elements in making the CDM work. Because the CDM emission off-sets must be demonstrably real, we must define a progressive base-line.

David Hallman noted that the World Council of Churches (WCC) has been engaged in issues of greenhouse gas emissions for ten years. He suggested that one of the values of dialog between science and religion is that they bring new perspectives to inter-governmental negotiations. The scientific community has done itself great credit by becoming engaged in the negotiation processes. Although the WCC has not been directly involved in the negotiations and does not bring the expertise of either science or economics, it does provide an ethical perspective. It calls attention to the limits of the efficiency revolution (where industrial efficiency is the primary measure of the good) and the need for a sufficiency revolution (where access to sufficient resources for life is a primary measure of the good). The religious communities also provide a sacramental sense of nature, touching a level of depth and commitment and nourishing negotiations.

He urged that the Kyoto Protocol be viewed as a justice statement. The Protocol does involve specific commitments and includes the responsibility of the developed countries to take the first steps. But by establishing baselines it may in effect establish "property rights" to the atmosphere. Does establishing a system of emissions trading amount to privatizing the atmosphere without agreeing how to share the atmosphere' Can market mechanisms effectively accomplish environmental goals'

Mark Frankel asked what sorts of discussions on the Kyoto Protocol had been going on in the local congregations. Hallman responded that it varies greatly across the many communions. The WCC did mount a petition campaign which tried to link environmental education with advocacy.

Another questioner asked what could be done between now and the March 15, 1999 Protocol signing deadline to enable President Clinton to sign. He noted that the U.S. seems to be a major obstacle to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and noted that our decision on the protocol will affect future generations. Kete responded that the Protocol is open for signing for one year. But after that time countries which did not sign can accede to the Protocol. Failure of the U.S. to sign will probably slow the process but will not end it. Kete said that she was uncertain that anything could be done to increase the likelihood that the U.S. would sign by March 15th. Hallman noted that the issue of future generations is a concern for the developed world and that the WCC is also concerned about overcoming existing inequities.

David Goldston added his perspective from within the U.S. Congress. He sees the Kyoto Protocol and climate change as the most divisive and contentious environmental issue. One group in Congress views the issue of climate change as a left-wing, environmental conspiracy. Another views the Protocol as a suicidal conspiracy which undervalues the potential for free-market innovation. Another, though generally concerned about environmental issues, is skeptical about the details of the Protocol. To protect against the Protocol coming in through the "backdoor," legislation was passed prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from doing anything to implement or anticipate implementation of the Protocol. But this step could prohibit regulatory actions which are only incidentally related to the Protocol and might be justified on other grounds. He concluded by noting that Congressional attention to these issues in the next months will be overshadowed by presidential politics, making it even less likely that the President will be authorized to sign the Protocol.

A member of the audience asked if Hallman felt that scientific findings were not relevant to the moral issues about which the WCC was concerned. Hallman answered that the WCC has a long history of concern about economic justice. It is only within the past 25 years that environmental issues have become a concern and only very recently that climate change issues have become a focus. Goldston noted that among those who take the science seriously, there is a wide range of opinion about how seriously to take the scientific uncertainty.

Another member of the audience said that he knew no clergy who were aware of emission trading and suggested that the issues were so complex that clergy might throw up their hands, say a few things about justice and move on. Hallman acknowledged that emissions trading is a technical issue, but suggested that at the community level our responsibility is simply to reduce our own emissions. Goldston commented that no moral issue can be divorced from fact. We need better informed religious participation.

Kete noted that India interprets emissions trading as assuming entitlements to the atmosphere. Under any environmental management system, every source has the right to do whatever is not illegal. Emissions trading needs to be seen as a mechanism which operates in the range of behaviors which are allowable.

An audience member asked whether Congress was paying any attention to the interplay between the scientific skeptics and the scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Goldston responded that Congress did pay attention but fitfully. Those representing the consensus scientific views must continue to make their case because the most vocal opponents to the Protocol are drawing out the skeptical scientists. Congress wants to hear from the scientific community and that community needs to articulate the uncertainty, as much as Congress dislikes uncertainty.

Another question came from the floor asking the likelihood that anything would be done about global climate change given the current disarray in the Administration and Congress. Goldston responded that nothing would probably happen until after the 2000 election. On the other hand, this hiatus provides a time to work on public perception of the issues.

Sixth Panel
The Role of Science, Religion, Values, and Economics in Making Policy on Climate Change
This panel was moderated by William Moomaw (Director, International Environment and Resource Policy Program, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University) and comprised of J. Christopher Bernabo (Director, RAND Environmental Sciences and Policy Center), Peter Brown (Director, Environmental Policy Program, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland), Jaydee Hanson (Assistant General Secretary, Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church) and Francis G. Hilton, S.J. (Assistant Professor of Economics, Loyola College).

Christopher Bernabo proposed that the questions of policy related to climate change were no longer issues of science but issues of values. He stated that climate change is perhaps the most studied area in environmental science. Science, he declared, is objective but scientists are not. In the past this distinction may not have been important but today the values are so important that trying to muddle through without explicitly attending to the values is no longer adequate. While he stated that he did not think that the fact/value dichotomy was artificial he defined policy as "values informed by facts."

Peter Brown identified three problems with standard macroeconomics: (1) it does not deal with issues of scale; (2) it does not indicate what the economy is for; and (3) it fails to provide information about the context within which the economy operates. On the other hand, the concept of stewardship (1) makes possible a general economic theory which understands the economy to be embedded in a biophysical system on which it depends; (2) recognizes limits on the size of the economy which assure that economic activity does not eradicate the variety of life; (3) views the purpose or goal of the economy to be ecological stability; and (4) situates the economy within human institutional structures.

Jaydee Hanson stated that churches have long supported education. In addition to playing an instrumental role in founding and sustaining colleges and universities, the more than 38,000 local churches in the U.S. provide education in the community. As an aside he noted that Vice President Al Gore did not bring the churches to environmental issues; rather he studied in a Methodist seminary.

Hanson identified three areas of value related to environmental issues: (1) justice, which overcomes various boundaries of culture, gender and race; (2) sustainability, which acknowledges that unlimited growth is not good; and (3) humility, which recognizes that our level of knowledge affects choices about what actions should be taken and when. He noted that observing the Sabbath, rather than treating it as another day for activities, would reduce energy consumption by 20%. Hanson described a grass roots movement among religious communities to help congregations become "green" and to seek political leaders and representatives who share their concerns. He suggested that public leaders need to learn that their constituents see energy as a moral issue.

Francis Hilton indicated that economics assumes that people are going to act rationally; that is, that they will have knowledge of a particular desired goal, will have knowledge of the means to attain that goal, and will pursue those means. Environmental economists can help identify the goals (e.g., the "best" level of pollution; that is, the one that minimizes the cost of pollution). It can help identify the means; namely the legal, moral or financial incentives. But economics can also muddy the waters. It can wrongly estimate the "best" level of pollution. It can wrongly assess non-market costs (e.g., how do you price a great view of the Rocky Mountains'). It can overlook issues of equity in assessing means.

In the panel discussion which followed, Brown suggested that the idea of the "optimal level of Pollution" was incompatible with Judeo-Christian morality. Further, environmental rationality fails because it is extremely difficult if not impossible to estimate the damage function. The cost internalization model ignores the difference between harms, which are compensated for, and wrongs, which are prohibited. It tends to privatize imminent domain. It ignores or conflates allocation with scale.

Hanson noted that when there is a determination of who will have to pay the cost the most ignored value is the one expressed in the saying, "to whom much is given, much will be required."

Bernabo suggested that part of the difficulty lies in the effort to monetize that which can not be monetized, and added that although values are always present in human affairs our culture has so conceived of itself as living in a hyper-rational world that value commitments are not acknowledged.

A member of the audience suggested that we live in a time of increasing environmental risks. We are perhaps the first generation who will threaten the well being of our own young. There is a need for environmental assessments on a global scale.

Another questioner from the floor wondered what impact the emerging problem of global climate change will have on Western monotheistic traditions. He also wondered to what extent Eastern religions need to contribute to the moral discussion.

Hilton suggested that economists and scientists needed to come out of the religious closet. Hanson noted that there are a lot of churches which are very comfortable avoiding the problems. Bernabo noted that indigenous peoples have evolved an interdependence with the environment and often a nature related spirituality.

A member of the audience commented that science has been seen by religious communities in too limited a fashion, primarily as a tool for measurement. But science can contribute conceptually to the building up of a new religious cosmology. For example, we ought to ask the meaning of stewardship in an universe which is still evolving.

Moomaw wondered whether science has frightened us into a cultural paradigm shift. Has science revealed something to us' A member of the audience suggested that there is an emerging new cosmology in which religion can make a fundamental contribution to understanding of the order of things. Bernabo commented that one definition of insanity might be doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. He suggested that we are already in a paradigm shift and that changes in science and religion need to occur together.

Hanson proposed that we need humility to ask whether we are arguing about the right issues. Humans have a good record for collapsing ecosystems (e.g., fisheries and forests). Moomaw wondered whether the collapse of fisheries and forests was due to bad science, bad economics or bad religion.

A questioner from the floor called attention to the problem of unexpected consequences, and cited ozone depletion by CFC's as an example. When CFC's were introduced they seemed to be a great advance. Our inability to foresee their global effects shows the need to interject humility and engage in long terms assessment of consequences.

Another member of the audience pointed out that policies intended to deal with global climatic phenomena need global institutions to carry them out.

Moomaw concluded the two-day dialogue by noting that many communities are choosing to implement the principles of the Kyoto Protocol without waiting for formal ratification. Scientists, economists and religious leaders have an opportunity to build a groundswell of support for the ideals underlying the Protocol. He referred to John Cobb's discussion of the organizing principles guiding Western culture. For a thousand years religion was at the center, for three hundred the nation state, and finally economic well being. Today we see a new principle emerging, a religious order based on scientifically informed environmental values.