Given the widespread, if hotly disputed, belief that religious conservatives were the deciding factor in last year's presidential race, news organizations of all sorts have paid a lot of attention to this sector of the U.S. population since President Bush's reelection. Against this larger backdrop, recent reports have noted growing environmental concerns of some prominent evangelical Christians. One interesting example of this reporting was an interview in The New York Times Magazine, with questions posed to Richard Cizik, a leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. The interviewer, Deborah Solomon, leads off by observing that Cizik is "going up against tradition by trying to persuade your 30 million members to care about pollution, global warming and environmentalism in general." Cizik responds that the Bible instructs people to "watch over creation and care for it." He goes on to add that he's an advocate of "creation care," not an "environmentalist." The reason is not the term itself, but the people it describes he says. They have "a bad reputation among evangelical Christians" for four reasons -- relying on "big-government solutions," teaming up with "population-control movements," keeping "kooky religious company," and tending toward "a certain gloom and doom." Along with this skepticism about environmentalists, however, Cizik asserts that "big corporate interests have an undue say in (Republican) party policy," and evangelicals concerned about the environment can help bring about compromises.

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03QUESTIONS.html?ex=1113364800&en=39cec0ae9ef8809b&ei=5070