E.O. Wilson sees accord on climate action

The biologist and writer Edward O. Wilson has spent decades exploring nature. Now he is using his stature as one of the world's best-known scientists to lobby for preserving it. Wilson, an emeritus professor at Harvard University, is part of an alliance of scientists and religious leaders that presented an open letter on climate change to the White House and Congress earlier this month, calling the issue "a profound moral imperative" demanding immediate action. Climate change is also the subject of his latest book, "The Creation." Wilson, was raised in Alabama as a Baptist but is now a self-described secularist. He spoke at his Lexington home last week with Globe Correspondent Peter Dizikes.

Q What are the most likely consequences of climate change?

A Two decades of intensive research by large teams around the world has left little doubt that the consequences are going to be severe even under the best of circumstances. They include a substantial rise in sea levels and changes of precipitation patterns, which are going to dry out many areas, like sub-Saharan Africa. And they include increasingly violent storms.

Q Can we still do anything about it?
A In climate change we are already fairly late in the game -- late second quarter, shall I say? A lot of damage is going to be done to the earth's climate no matter what we do, but we can abate the effects in two ways. One is to start easing as much as possible the cause of climate change. And the other is by preparing ourselves for the worst effects of it to come. As a conservationist, my mind is on saving as much of the diversity of life as we possibly can.

Q Your new book is an open letter to a "Southern Baptist pastor." Why did you write it?

A To convey in a relatively short book why biodiversity matters, why it is a marvelous part of the environment, why it's dangerous for us to allow it to disappear, and what we must do about it. One of the surprises I got from writing the book was the very warm response of evangelicals, who had already been thinking along these lines.

Q Why have some religious leaders taken this position?

A Evangelicals, who are Bible-based, may feel that the totality of the Old and New Testaments, in references to the environment, is in fact proconservation. We are stewards of the environment. . . . Speaking to me, they say, "You've held out a hand of friendship, you've asked for our help, and we're going to do the same thing with you, because we need the science in order to really put a foundation under our sermons."

Q In "The Creation" you say science and religion are the two most powerful forces in the world. As a practical matter, what about oil companies, automakers, etc.?

A At the end of the day, and at the bottom line, the politician is obedient to citizens, and the corporations go with the wishes of citizens. The membership of the National Association of Evangelicals alone, the largest evangelical organization, is 42,000 churches, 30 million people. This ought to tell you something.

Q You have said people don't know why they should care about the environment. What do you mean?

A People can understand what's happening when their eyes are stinging in Los Angeles or Mexico City. They had no trouble getting behind the conservation of the good ozone in the upper atmosphere. They certainly understand why it was a good thing to clean Boston Harbor. It gets a little trickier, though, when you start talking about saving biological diversity. . . . This is a much more complicated subject. Why should one species matter? Evangelicals have a reason -- because it's part of God's creation. That makes it easier in some cases to talk to an evangelical than to a businessman.

Q Will we see real attempts to make changes in 2007?

A I think we are at a tipping point. Some might call that just optimism. But . . . when you have disparate elements like science and religion coming together, this could spread very quickly.