Pundits of all political stripes have pondered the effect that religion is currently having in the world, and what that means for the future of the planet. The rise of radical Islam has right-wing commentators up in arms, while the popularity of evangelical mega-churches in the United States has caused plenty of hand wringing on the left.

The fears of both sides are unfounded, according to Alan Wolfe, writing for the Atlantic. “Most of the religious revivals we are seeing throughout the world today complement, and ultimately reinforce, secular developments,” Wolfe writes. “They are more likely to encourage moderation than fanaticism.”

Taking a page from the playbooks of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, Wolfe writes that material wealth makes people less religious. As countries get rich, their citizens will turn away from religion. The United States would seem to disprove that rule, since its citizens are both religious and wealthy, but Wolfe discounts that, calling American religiosity, “as shallow as it is broad.” Also, the current popularity of American evangelicalism, according to Wolfe, is owed in part to the religion’s embrace of secular values and lifestyles.

Throughout the world, Wolfe writes that “religious peace will be the single most important consequence of the secular underpinning of today’s religious growth.”

Not everyone, however, shares Wolfe’s optimistic vision of the future. Philip Jenkins writes for the New Republic (subscription required) that the looming crisis in climate change will exacerbate preexisting religious tensions throughout the world. In the future, as crops wither and icecaps melt, Jenkins warns that “ethnic cleansing in the name of resource protection” may become the norm.

On the other hand, climate change could lead to greater cooperation between people, Cynthia G. Wagner writes for the Futurist. Wagner acknowledges the probability that global warming could lead to conflicts, but also posits that the coming ecological crisis could lead to “economic change, trade, technological and social innovation, and peaceful resource distribution,” rather than simple religious strife and fighting. God willing.

—Bennett Gordon

Image by naughton, licensed under Creative Commons.

Male-dominated governments have been destroying the planet for too long, and now women need to clean up the mess. Women already control the majority of the shopping decisions, and now they just need to buy the right foods, shoes, and handbags to save the world from global warming.

A greener tomorrow will consist of “women driving the domestic agenda and men thinking they are doing the real work with dams and treaties,” Simon Fanshawe, writing for the UK-based eco-magazine Green Futures. This is good news for men like me (and Mr. Fanshawe) because that means women will do the work for us, while we can sit back watching football, drinking beer, and doing other stereotypical guy stuff.

The problem with this mode of thinking is that climate change is everyone’s problem. Fanshawe points out, “All the UK’s best-known eco campaigns are dominated by men.” This is a problem. But the solution shouldn’t be to make the environment a women’s issue. They should be equal partners, right?

It reminds me of a quote by Henry Kissinger:

“Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

—Bennett Gordon

The struggle to stop global warming has suffered a major setback. Again. But this time it's the Brits' fault. The UK government, which had previously set ambitious plans to cut its reliance on nonrenewable energy, is already scheming to wriggle out of its commitment in the next couple of days. From the Guardian:

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that [prime minister] Gordon Brown will be advised today that the target Tony Blair signed up to this year for 20 percent of all European energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 is expensive and faces "severe practical difficulties."

The news doesn't bode well for the worldwide environmental movement. If a country whose people clearly support environmentally friendly policies can't get its act together to switch to renewable energy, then the United States, China, and other massive polluters with powerful contingents that don't even believe in global warming are just that much less likely to green up. —Brendan Mackie