Introduction

Eco-spirituality—a belief system that treats Nature as sacred—has infiltrated climate science and environmental policy, often at the expense of evidence and reason. I believe science should be based on measurable data, not spiritual ideas, and that climate change is mostly a natural process, with human influence that isn’t always bad. This page explores how eco-spirituality distorts our understanding of climate, influences policies like the Green New Deal, and rejects practical solutions, pushing us away from the facts we need to make informed decisions.

Ecology worships Gaia.

What Is Eco-Spirituality?

Eco-spirituality is the idea that Nature is divine or sacred, often tied to beliefs like pantheism—seeing Nature as a god—or panentheism, where the divine is in all creation. Leslie E. Sponsel, in *Ecology and Spirituality*, describes it as a way to find “vision, meaning, purpose, and direction” through mystical experiences with Nature. Since the 1990s, this idea has grown, showing up in academic programs like Yale’s “Religion and Ecology” concentration, which combines ecology with theology, spirituality, and even eco-feminism. Virginia Tech’s Executive Master of Natural Resources program also blends environmental management with non-scientific approaches, moving beyond “scientific and technical knowledge.”

These ideas aren’t based on evidence—they’re beliefs, much like religion. Science should focus on what we can measure and test, not on finding spiritual meaning in Nature. When eco-spirituality mixes with climate science, it clouds the facts, leading to decisions based on feelings rather than data.

Impact on Climate Science and Policy

Eco-spirituality distorts climate science by ignoring natural patterns in favor of alarmism. For example, global temperatures rose by about 0.2 degrees Celsius from 1997 to 2017, influenced by natural events like the 1998 El Niño and a peak in solar activity around 2000. By 2017, a dip in solar output—part of the Sun’s natural cycles—coincided with a pause in warming. Yet, eco-spiritual narratives often frame this warming as a crisis caused by humans, ignoring these natural drivers. This focus on belief over evidence can lead to exaggerated claims, like the idea that we’re facing a “cataclysmic climate disaster.”

In policy, eco-spirituality often aligns with broader agendas. The Green New Deal, championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019, is one example. AOC warned that “people are going to die” without it, predicting disaster within a decade. But her plan focuses more on economic changes—like wealth redistribution—than on the environment, and its timeline doesn’t match scientific projections, which estimate a 1.5-degree rise by 2050, not a catastrophe. Eco-spirituality also leads to rejecting practical solutions, like nuclear power, which can cut CO2 emissions, or GMOs, which grow more food with less land. These beliefs prioritize Nature’s “sacredness” over human welfare, which science should always put first.

A Scientific Perspective

Climate change is mostly a natural process, driven by cycles like solar activity and ocean currents, with human influence that isn’t always bad. Nature has been through similar changes before—during the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for farming, and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850 cooled the planet before it warmed again. Human contributions, like CO2 rising from 280 to 420 parts per million since 1850, have added to this warming, but they also bring benefits. Higher CO2 has increased leaf area by 7% since 2000, boosting crop yields by 10–20% and helping nature thrive. Nature is resilient—it adapts to change, as it always has.

Science should focus on these facts, not spiritual ideas. We need data, like how solar cycles affect temperature, or how CO2 helps plants grow, to understand the climate. Policies should be based on what works—like using nuclear power to reduce emissions or GMOs to feed more people—not on beliefs that Nature must be preserved at all costs. Human welfare depends on reason, not mysticism.

Conclusion

Eco-spirituality undermines climate science by prioritizing belief over evidence, distorting our understanding of natural climate patterns, and influencing policies like the Green New Deal that focus more on economic agendas than the environment. Climate change is mostly natural, with cycles that have shaped Earth for centuries, and human influence can even bring benefits, like more plant growth. Nature is resilient, and science should guide us with data, not spiritual ideas. We need transparent, evidence-based discussions to make decisions that support human welfare, not ones driven by mysticism or fear.

Share This Article

Bristol Blog banner featuring social issues and education critiques by Lewis Loflin.