Candid words from a Christian climate scientist
Katharine Hayhoe has a message for climate advocates—and for skeptics
Katharine Hayhoe, professor of public policy and public law at Texas Tech University and climate ambassador for the World Evangelical Alliance.
On February 12, President Trump, who frequently refers to climate change as a “hoax,” reversed the US government’s prior “endangerment finding” that had undergirded actions to reduce production of greenhouse gases.
Globally, Christians—including evangelicals—overwhelmingly support efforts to combat climate change. The World Evangelical Alliance even has a Sustainability Center in Bonn, Germany. But many US evangelicals have tended to associate government actions on climate change with liberal efforts to control the economy and reduce individual freedom.
No one spends more time thinking about these issues than Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and superb communicator who has served as the World Evangelical Alliance’s climate ambassador. Her expertise on climate change advocacy and how to discuss the topic has attracted wide attention, including a 2021 interview with comedian and talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel.
The extensive FAQ page of Hayhoe’s website answers almost any question you might want to ask on this topic, but it didn’t answer all of mine. So she graciously answered my queries. I hope this interview receives wide distribution.
What have you seen evangelical Christians doing about climate issues that makes you happy and proud of them?
There is so much hopeful work happening globally that doesn’t always make headlines. Organizations like Tearfund, A Rocha, Operation Noah, World Vision, Compassion International, the Lausanne Movement and many more are actively building climate resilience among many of the world’s most vulnerable people, working to protect and restore God’s creation, and equipping churches to care for both people and the planet in practical, tangible ways.
I’ve been especially encouraged by Tearfund’s work mobilizing churches around the world, including the video resources we developed together to help congregations understand why climate action is part of loving our neighbor, that have been watched by hundreds of congregations in the UK, Germany, Australia and Canada. A Rocha’s long-standing investment in nature, conservation and food—usually in partnership with local communities—continues to be a powerful example of faith in action. And World Vision and Compassion International are helping Christians connect the dots between climate impacts and the children and families they serve every day.
One of my favorite stories is Tony Rinaudo’s work with farmer-managed natural regeneration across the Sahel. Millions of trees have been restored while boosting agricultural production in areas where people depend on their land for their livelihoods. And the church forests of Ethiopia are another beautiful example: communities protecting biodiversity for generations because they see creation care as part of their calling.
Taken together, these efforts show us how many Christians around the world are already living out what it means to love our global neighbors in a warming world.
Have you been able to engage with any thoughtful US evangelical climate skeptics (not conspiracists) and if so, what do they say to you?
A true skeptic is someone who lacks information and is open to evidence. In my experience, very few people who reject climate science fit that description. In fact, I don’t think I’ve met more than one or two true skeptics in over three decades of conversations with thousands of Christians about this topic.
Most people I encounter already have access to information, if they want it. But they don’t. What’s happening instead is what psychologists call “motivated reasoning.” That means we’ve already made up our minds (based on the “tribe” we see ourselves belonging to, or our identity) and we are using our smarts not to discover what’s true, but to defend what we already believe or what aligns with our identity or ideology.
In the evangelical space, this often shows up in two forms: sciencey-sounding objections and religiousy-sounding objections. I’ve unpacked responses to each of these in these two Global Weirding episodes (episode one and episode two).
When people are genuinely curious, I’m always glad to have a conversation. But most Christians who have already decided to reject the reality of climate change or the need for action aren’t looking for a conversation or information. Instead, they’re looking to dismiss the science or question my faith. That’s a very different kind of engagement and not one that I often participate in, because I’ve never seen it yield positive results. In fact, research shows that when we argue with people who hold an ideological position that they believe informs their identity, arguing just strengthens their position.
When you tell climate skeptics about communities in Fiji, Tuvalu, or New Zealand being affected by rising sea levels, what do they say to you?
Again, the reason Christians in the US reject the reality or severity of climate change usually isn’t a lack of information. Many people who reject the reality or risks of climate change have already decided, consciously or unconsciously, to filter the evidence through an ideological lens.
When our identity or worldview feels threatened, our brains are remarkably good at dismissing inconvenient facts. That’s why simply providing more facts rarely changes minds.
For those on this spectrum who are cautious, concerned, and maybe a few who are disengaged or doubtful, I’ve found conversations can be productive when we begin with shared values. Those values can include caring for our neighbors, protecting what God has entrusted to us, and reducing harm to the most vulnerable, with examples from how climate change affects our brothers and sisters around the world.
For the dismissive, though, I truly believe it takes a miracle to change their minds; and while I may have seen one or two miracles in thirty years, I don’t think I had anything to do with them!
Do you have any suggestions for evangelical Christians disturbed by the close alliance between Trump and many evangelicals?
I believe they should be disturbed, because even a simple comparison between the fruit of the Spirit versus the deeds of the flesh shows which side most politicians are on. And for Christians to not only turn a blind eye to that but actually try to represent black as white is fundamentally anti-Christian.
Of course, we also have to realize that many who identify as evangelical in the US—40 percent in one survey—don’t even go to church, because it has now become a political rather than a theological term for many.
For the many evangelicals I speak with who are wrestling with this, I encourage them to remember that our identity is not defined by any political party or leader. Scripture calls us to care for the poor, love our neighbors, pursue truth, and be good stewards of creation. Those responsibilities transcend any moment in political history and, in times of high contrast such as today, allow us the opportunity to consider more deeply what we believe and how we are called to share God’s love.
What else would you want to share with the global Christian community at this time?
To summarize my talk at the Lausanne Congress in 2024, I would say this. Climate change, loss of nature, and pollution are not only environmental issues. They are profoundly human issues, affecting our health, our well-being and our livelihoods.
Around the world, the people most affected are those who have contributed least to the problem. As Christians, we already know that we are to be recognized by our love for others and to care for the most vulnerable.
The good news is that we are not starting from scratch. Many churches and ministries are already leading the way. I hope and pray that more of us will see climate action not as a political distraction but as a loving expression of living out our faith in today’s world.
Climate change is a fun discussion (is it science? Is it theory? Can we prove / observe / verify any of our postulates? Can we show that we cause it? Can we show that we can change it (for the good) by our behavioral changes?)
The crux though is what meaningful approaches exist. I ride a bike—a lot. I believe in it. But I cannot make 140 million commuters ride a bike. I have two hybrid vehicles—but pretty good data suggest that the greenhouse gas emissions involved in making those vehicles and generating electricity for them might exceed the GHG saved from burning hydrocarbons. I have bought into the solar field plan of my local power company; but again, pretty good data suggests that this source of electricity will always be 2-3x more expensive, and may actually “cost” the “earth” more (digging up the rare earth minerals necessary to create these devices, usually in poor developing countries of Africa or Asia, with little OSHA or pollution mitigation technology—Think strip-mining from the early 20th century in Kentucky and southern Indiana and Ohio.)
So, what to do? The Kyoto Protocol, and Paris agreement, (of which I am no expert, just an AI querier and Google search pawn), suggest that money/wealth transfers from “industrialized” nations (Annex 1 nations, 37 of them) and hard commitments to GHG targets will somehow cause this problem to become lesso. And yet, somehow, China, as the highest producer of GHG on the globe, accounting for 35% of the world’s total, (exceeding all developed nations combined) is categorized (by a 1992 understanding, which they are unwilling to change/give up) as a “developing nation”, a “non-Annex I” nation, and not subject to either the financial contribution to the overall cause, or to the hard commitments to mitigate their GHG ouput.
They are instead entitled to a voluntary commitment, which they have made (which has a laughable target accomplishment date of 2060), and which they can walk away from, if they choose. And also, yes, these Accords include something called “technology transfer” of GHG mitigating technology. Saving the Chinese from have to more surreptitiously steal technology…
So cynically, climate policy at this level seems like a laughable wealth transfer from the US and Europe to the rest of the world (and China is included with the developing world); and a speed break on our economy (from the ruthlessly competitive Chinese, whose open goal is to crush every other economy in the world). And yet, despite this terrible economic arrangement, no real proof even that all these changes, if implemented, would alter climate change much. I wouldn’t let ink anywhere near the signature line of such a one-sided “agreement.”
So I’ll continue to set my thermostat at 65F (in the winter), and 75 (in the summer), enjoy cycling, re-use my water bottles, encourage my friends and neighbors in the same, and skirt any significant public support for silly “international accords”. Until some degree of fairness and transparency occurs, beginning with moving China out of the “non Annex I” countries…
Aside from the main thrust of the argument, I note what was said about the MAGA - evangelical 'union'. I have tried to understand how the US E-crowd has been just fine with the vulgarity, profanity and profound moral choices of T. The election polls revealed that white Es were the reason T was elected, as all other groups were way down in T's support. Throw in a few crumbs T sends the E way, and knowing the Dems would not have done this, is enough to keep people who know better quiet. That affects all policies.