Could climate science be considered a form of religion? It seems the Trump administration might want that idea to stick.
Earlier this year, Lee Zeldin, the head of the EPA under Trump, made headlines with substantial rollbacks of environmental regulations. One of his significant moves targets a crucial scientific determination known as “danger detection,” which has underscored climate regulations for over 16 years. This determination links greenhouse gases to health threats for both present and future generations.
While not a widely recognized term, “danger detection” serves as the legal foundation for contemporary climate regulations, influencing emissions from vehicles, power plants, and the oil and gas industries. The EPA’s efforts to revoke this authority, as experts warn, could escalate the already intense impacts of climate change and extreme weather, which, this summer, have been particularly catastrophic, leading to increased health risks.
Recently, there has been talk of revoking these findings, which typically would require a strong array of counter-evidence. This time, it suggests that emissions aren’t a cause for concern.
But Zeldin seems to prefer a more religious rhetoric over scientific facts. He referred to the danger detection as the “holy grail of climate religion,” asserting that he and his team are attacking this so-called faith head-on.
Labeling climate change as a “religion” is, unfortunately, an old smear tactic that undermines both science and genuine religious values.
Take Rachel Carson, for example. When she published “Silent Spring” in 1962, documenting the dangers of pesticides, critics quickly labeled her a zealot. Even today, some conservative voices dismiss her warnings as mere fanaticism, despite persistent evidence of chemical risks.
This brings us to the question of what the “religious” label really means and why it holds such negative connotations, particularly among conservative individuals.
For Carson, the label aimed to discredit her as irrational and overly emotional. Fast forward to today, and similar slurs are directed at figures like Greta Thunberg. Yet, the insinuations often paint those who care for the environment as part of some mystical cult, which is, frankly, baffling.
Using “religion” as a critique creates an unnecessary divide, implying that people must choose between caring for the environment and holding religious beliefs.
Many conservative Christians who oppose regulations often frame their views as entirely opposite to an environmentalist mindset. For instance, an Evangelical initiative at Liberty University refers to climate change as a “false gospel,” similar to other religious doctrines.
This argument establishes a narrative that pits climate scientists—who are often portrayed as the “prophets”—against “heretics” who deny climate change. They suggest that climate reports are akin to sacred texts and frame fossil fuel reliance as humanity’s original sin while predicting apocalyptic outcomes if drastic action is not taken.
However, this binary choice is misleading.
Of course, nature and religion can both provide profound meaning in people’s lives. Like spiritual practices, interactions with nature can offer structure and community, creating feelings of awe. While it’s true that religion is a source of meaning for many, it’s also evident that secular interests—like organized sports—serve a similar role. But hardly anyone argues that one has to choose between sports and spirituality.
Humans are quite adept at weaving diverse significances into their lives, even if they don’t always align perfectly. Historically, environmentalism and religion have often intertwined, creating shared values.
Carson’s “Care for Creation” reflected her religious upbringing, and the history of environmentalism shows that religion, especially Christianity, has shaped many environmental protections. Some modern evangelicals regard climate activism as pertinent to their beliefs about pro-life issues, viewing the well-being of future generations through the lens of their faith. While skepticism about climate change is real, its roots often lie more in politics than in genuine ideological differences.
Those against regulations seem hesitant to acknowledge that climate awareness can coexist with religious beliefs, despite the need for a safe and stable environment for all living beings.
By branding climate science as a dogmatic faith, Zeldin’s remarks seem to be simply a tactical move in response to compelling scientific evidence supporting climate responsibility.
