Chika O. Okafor is Harvard Law School’s inaugural Fellow in Law and Political Economy. He is also a PhD Candidate in Economics at Harvard University and a Public Voices fellow on the Climate Crisis with the OpEd Project in partnership with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Okafor is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
Last June, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and reversed over 40 years of precedent protecting the right to an abortion. Nearly one year later, Pope Francis called for an end to “the era of fossil fuel.”
The papal encyclical points to a moment of unexpected opportunity. The Dobbs decision represented the hallmark victory for the pro-life movement, a movement that has shaped conservative voting patterns for decades and, in many ways, contributed to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Yet with this judicial victory, the anti-abortion pro-life movement may be winding to an end— and with it, its stranglehold on voting patterns for much of the conservative base.
Perhaps environmentalism can become the next "pro-life" movement.
Environmentalism aims to preserve life on a scale far exceeding the grandest vision of the current “pro-life” movement— encompassing not just human life today, but also the lives of future generations and the lives of all flora and fauna.
Just as the current “pro-life” movement has strong religious undercurrents, religious justifications for environmentalism already abound. The Green Bible, originally published in 2008, highlights in green ink biblical scriptures that teach about God’s care for creation and how God interacts with creation. The Green Bible includes essays from leading conservationists and theologians on how to read the Bible through a “green” lens, to encourage readers to care for the planet.
Building the next pro-life movement upon environmentalism is more than mere semantics. It requires framing environmentalism in ways that resonate with the moral foundation of many conservatives. Evangelical Christians—now one of four Americans— grew to embrace the anti-abortion pro-life movement at the end of the 1970s due to religious leadership, grassroots advocacy, and reframing the debate to be focused on the rights of the unborn.
These very elements could prove critical in building the next “green” pro-life movement. Climate communications expert Katharine Hayhoe explained that it is vitally important in climate conversations to connect over the shared values of the people one is seeking to reach. Relatedly, sociologist David Snow’s research highlighted that social movements can only succeed if they properly frame their issues and grievances. One of the single greatest frames that guides how many people—particularly evangelicals—make meaning in the world is religion.
From Joan of Arc to Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King, from the old Negro slave spirituals in the American South to the defiance of martyred monks in rural Tibet, religious faith has demonstrated its capacity to inspire courage and hope in the midst of darkness. It can preserve conviction even in the face of demoralizing measures of progress. Beyond simply convincing people of looming climate change, a religious framing could inspire change by fostering widespread moral buy-in.
To be sure, many remain (understandably) skeptical of religion, aware of its checkered past throughout history. For example, while the Civil Rights Movement relied on the black church to mobilize supporters in the fight for justice, just a century earlier many white Protestant churches continued to justify the abhorrent institution of slavery. Similarly, while today grassroots organizations like the Evangelical Environmental Network work to inspire, educate, and mobilize evangelical Christians to work toward a stable climate, many evangelical churches continue to distort religious teachings to encourage rejection of scientific evidence and its related calls for climate action.
But the cost of abandoning this dialogue with religious communities is simply too high. According to the scientific consensus, if global temperatures increase more than 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, we will pass a key tipping point after which the chances of massive disruptions like extreme flooding, drought, and storms could increase dramatically. Based on our current trajectory, we may reach this threshold within the next five years.
If we want to overcome the persistent resistance to supporting climate change initiatives, we need to shift Americans’ religious and moral frame to see that environmentalism is encouraged by their existing belief structure. Already, over 90% of very religious Americans completely or mostly agree that God gave humans a duty to protect and care for the Earth, and there is increasing support for pro-climate initiatives, particularly among youth.
Genesis 2:15 reminds us that stewardship of the Earth is not simply environmental; it is biblical. Now we need to remind people of faith of their role as stewards. Linking this holy charge to the fight against climate change can greatly inform fellow Christians—conservatives and liberals, evangelicals and otherwise—both how to live and how to vote.
The dangers of climate change are more acknowledged today than ever before. But that is not enough. To usher robust support for climate action across party lines, we must move environmentalism beyond the public consciousness into the public’s consciences. The most pro-life cause must become the next pro-life movement.
This article was first published by Newsweek.com.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.