Apparently, people who don’t believe in global warming will still conserve energy and promote non-fossil fuels if you give them other (including religious) reasons. My experience in political advocacy over the years tells me that environmentalists will have a mixed reaction to this.
When I was pushing for the first mental health parity law, I worked closely with advocates who did not want the vote of any Congressional Representative unless s/he “admits that mental illness is a disease and not covering it with insurance is discrimination.” They were exasperated with people like me who were satisfied if a member voted for parity because it polled well in their district, or because the insurance companies gave heavily to their primary opponent last cycle, or because they wanted to appease activists in their districts whom they personally considered “crazy”. As long as the Congressional Representative or Senator voted “the right way” I didn’t care why they did so, but I was working alongside dear, respected friends who found such pragmatism morally suspect.
Some environmentalists will be overjoyed at the NY times story on energy conservation without belief in global warming, i.e., at last, a way to reach the unreachable! But another faction will turn up their collective noses and say that energy conservation only “counts if it’s done for the right reasons”, and until they “admit they are wrong and that global warming is real” the Kansas residents profiled in the story are still the enemy.