Greentwiga, has the (by past standards unimaginable) wealth and prosperity - and the resultant reductions in human suffering - that our fossil fueled civilisation has achieved helped cement a 'fossil fuels are good' position within religious (as well as well-meaning other) people that resists deeper examination? Whether the total amount of human suffering has actually been reduced, given that a consequence of that wealth and prosperity has been enormous growth in human population is a question too; certainly the numbers of people who live in relative prosperity has grown enormously but the numbers who endure suffering has grown too.
For commerce and business the choice of position to take is decided primarily on the basis of costs, profitability and competitiveness - environmental consequences readily seen as a case of what-will-be-will-be but the regulation and cost imposts on their activities is readily seen as something that can successfully influenced via established tools for influencing government policy and public opinion. The question of
the validity of the science matters less in such a decision making processes than
perceptions about the validity of science and perceptions are within their ability to influence and change.
That ethical element that values and insists on truth and honesty is not built into the decision making processes of commerce and business so it is incapable of giving a true understanding of consequences. It's collective decisions will be flawed as a result.
For religion and science there is a requirement for high standards of honesty. They seem to share at least that core ethical value in common, one that isn't shared by commerce and industry. But religious people want to reduce human suffering and commerce and industry, with a minimum of restriction and regulation, appears to be most successful at achieving widespread prosperity. But I suggest the absence of core ethical values in common makes commerce and business a poor ally for religion and achieving greater good through such an alliance will be significantly impeded by that absence; commerce has a short term focus and, if it appears to not be in their short term interests there will be motivation to resist deeper examination of the basis of their choices. The mediators, and immediate beneficiaries of that kind of alliance - politicians and political parties - make even less suitable and reliable allies if those values really are core ones.
Edited by Ken Fabos, : No reason given.