Texas is turning to wind power to sustain its energy business
Julian Pettifer travelled to the US to tell the story of the unlikely new champions of environmentalism among the Evangelical Right.
We asked for your comments on our programme and the issues that it raised. A selection of your comments are below. This debate is now closed.
Turning to wind power is surely better than fighting for oil. Environmental protection should be the key to a better future.
We should learn to live in peace.
Josephat M Mua, Kenya/US
The programme was very interesting. There are undoubtedly moral aspects to the problem because harm of the innocent is involved, and not just humans. However, this is more than just a religious moral consideration. Ethics are also involved.
That the USA is driven by commercial interests is loaded with ethical considerations. Indeed, the speakers supporting the market approach want to see that the monetary benefits outweigh the costs. There should be no surprise that this is in conformity with free-market Republican viewpoints.
The failure of this position is to realise that the consequences cannot be neatly labelled and added up in a cost-benefit analysis. The market fails to take account of the environment unless there is a profit to be made and that is the cause of the problem. The market will react to shortages but too late to prevent many of the impacts of climate change and only once there is a crisis looming.
In the end, the value expressed by economic calculus is often in conflict with what is seen as right. This conflict is most stark in the case of climate change, and not just for Evangelical Christians.
The inclusion of John Houghton was of particular interest as here we see the objective scientists operating within a heavily value-laden context.
Can scientists really be expected to leave their values at the door when entering the laboratory or study? There is a programme in there about the myth of scientific objectivity.
Prof Clive Spash, Author of
Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics, UK
It is clear that no matter how climate-friendly a new technology is, it must first be profitable in the market.
Therefore it is the capitalist market that actually determines the use of new environmental technology.
However, the market does not breath like us humans do, and it does not feed like humans do.
It is a crime against humanity to allow the market to determine which technology is to be used.
Engin Atasay, San Diego, USA