Reflecting the heterogeneous nature of rural America, rural Americans are divided â’“ primarily along religious lines â’“ on their perspectives of environmental conservation and climate change, a new brief from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire finds. And as rural voters and environmental issues become key issues in the upcoming presidential election, this religious divide presents a challenge to political candidates.
â’Rural voters, who are more often evangelical, may see the effects of global warming and other environmental issues first-hand, given how central natural resources are to their livelihoods,â’ says report author Michele Dillon, a senior fellow at the Carsey Institute and professor of sociology at UNH. â’Yet we found that born-again Protestants tend to be the least likely to perceive the effects of global warming.â’
Dillon and co-author Megan Henly analyzed data gathered in 2007 from the Carsey Instituteâ’s research on Community and Environment in Rural America (CERA). That research surveyed 7,842 residents of 19 rural counties across the U.S. and found four major profiles of rural America: amenity-rich communities, declining resource-dependent communities, chronically poor communities, and communities transitioning between declining resource-dependent and amenity-rich (see â’Place Matters: Challenges and Opportunities in Four Rural Americasâ’).
Rural Americans to be quite divided on environmental issues. Asked whether it is more important to use natural resources to create jobs or to conserve natural resources for future generations:
- 29 % job creation
- 43 % conservation
- 28 % both priorities should be weighed equally.
Born-again Protestants were less likely to favor resource conservation 40 % than other rural Americans, particularly Catholics 49 % and unaffiliated 48 %. Born-again Protestants are also significantly more likely than other rural Americans to say that urban sprawl and global warming have no effects on their communities.
The divide between born-again Protestants and other religious affiliations on the effects of sprawl and global warming is even more pronounced in declining resource-dependent communities (concentrated in Appalachia and the Midwest), where 59 % of born-again Protestants see no effect of global warming, compared to 50 percent of non-evangelical Protestants.
â’There seems to be a confluence of experiencing decline and being born again that is particularly antithetical to perceiving environmental threat,â’ says Dillon.
Noting that born-again Protestants are more likely to identify with the Republican Party, the brief suggests that Republican candidates will benefit from heeding the environmental views of this group. Yet other rural Americans, particularly those living in amenity-rich areas, are more likely to represent pro-environment views, presenting a challenge for political candidates.
â’Thereâ’s no obvious way John McCain can have an environmental policy that appeases both groups,â’ says Dillon.
Resources
(download a copy of the report)
The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire conducts research and analysis on the challenges facing rural families and communities in New Hampshire, New England, and the nation. The Carsey Institute sponsors independent, interdisciplinary research that documents trends and conditions affecting families and communities, providing valuable information and analysis to policymakers, practitioners, the media, and the general public. Through this work, the Carsey Institute contributes to public dialogue on policies that encourage social mobility and sustain healthy, equitable communities. The Carsey Institute was established in May 2002 with a generous gift from UNH alumna and noted television producer Marcy Carsey.
Personal Note
There is bad and good religion. The good focus on the poor, homeless and having healthy happy lives. The bad religion will fight to the death or debt for social doctrine domination. To not believe in global warming is almost irrelevant, it is about changing the way the United States selfishly uses and produces toxins and waste that entire world feel the consequences.
There is a thought process that must be added to the religous mind. The process of loving your neighbor and caring for all human beings has been tossed asside for non biblical values. No where in the bible does it say to “love the sinner and hate the sin”. It does say “Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself”.
What does the bible actually say about love?
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
-
These are not biblical values.
It is NOT biblical to spend almost millions of dollars to stop gay marriage when there are poor and homeless.
- It is NOT biblical to produce fear and promote hate.
- God is not political
- Is it NOT biblical to judge others.
- Here is my favorite quote from “The West Wing”:
President Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
Now that Powell has, openly, endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama . . . does that mean the United States will have an intelligent President? Maybe even a Bartlet?