Four words illustrate where debate about climate change is headed in the United States: "What would Jesus drive?"

They are part of a campaign devised by the Evangelical Environmental Network which describes itself as an environmental group of biblically orthodox Christians. Their aim is to find "new ways to love your neighbor as we strive together to reduce fuel consumption and pollution from the cars, trucks, and SUVs we drive."

That may sound cute but the US government should be paying close attention to campaigns such as this. The sudden eco-awareness of the religious right, which culminated in a demand for stricter environmental laws in February, is just one of many indications of a growing environmental awareness in the United States.

Most observers attribute this to last year's disastrous hurricane season which brought death and destruction to New Orleans and the eastern coast of the US with the storms "Katrina" and "Rita." The west of the US meanwhile battled drought and a dramatic increase in forest fires.

Media blames climate change

Unlike on previous occasions, US media quickly associated the natural disasters with climate change. And after initial skepticism, some US scientists are increasingly convinced that there is a link between the two.

The US appears to be undergoing a shift in opinion away from the long-held view that humans aren't responsible for global warming. "There's a basic acceptance that colors the way people talk about weather-related events these days," said Deborah Blum, professor of journalism and mass communications at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The change has taken place in the media, said Blum who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1992. Until recently, newspapers and TV stations had given a lot of space and airtime to climate skeptics, even though they are now in the minority, in a bid to show objectivity. Not any more.

"News coverage of Katrina and Rita deliberately included the global warming factor in the most significant way I've seen and without a lot of fumbling for opposition opinions," Blum told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Self-confessed professional skeptic Michael Shermer, publisher of "Skeptic" magazine and founder of the "Skeptic Society," has also noticed the trend.

"Articles, essays, opinion editorials, books, television programs, and documentaries have elevated public awareness," said Shermer. Katrina has contributed to this, he added. "It certainly did grab the world’s attention, most notably in the very place that most needed attending to the problem: America."

"Dramatic shift"

Shermer is talking about a "dramatic shift " which curiously has gripped the political right in particular. Conservatives and Christians alike are saying they have recognized the threat. "The Christians especially are suddenly arguing that "God’s 'creation' should be worshipped and cared for, and that includes the environment," said Shermer.

Shermer, who initially doubted the warnings about climate change, has recently changed his mind. "Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable," he wrote in the US magazine "Scientific American." "No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism."

Opinion polls indicate that a majority of Americans agrees. A survey by Gallup in the spring found that 77 percent of Americans worry "a great deal" or "a fair amount" about the environment -- a rise of 15 percentage points within two years.

New disasters could reinforce the trend. British magazine The Economist, not exactly known for being alarmist about environmental issues, has been addressing the possible impact of hurricanes. It wrote that most midwestern politicians talk about alternative fuels only in the context of the economy and security, and not climate change.

"A few bad hurricanes may change that indifference," it wrote. "Although conservatives have vigorously disputed the link between global warming and last year's dreadful storms, another Katrina could push people over the edge."

Climate change is likely to become one of the top issues of the 2008 presidential election. Two possible candidates, Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton, have already made clear statements that place them firmly in the environmental camp. A number of Republicans have distanced themselves from President George W. Bush, among them California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has attracted attention with increasingly strict laws to protect the environment.

Al Gore's comeback

Al Gore, former vice president and failed Democratic presidential candidate, has also made an impressive comeback with his climate change film "An Inconvenient Truth" which has astounded critics by vaulting into the top ten of the US movie charts.

Gore has vigorously denied that his film is a bid for a second Democratic nomination for the presidency. But a number of Democrats and liberal media are presenting him as a contender. "The film does make a powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running the country," wrote New York Times commentator Paul Krugman.

Industry too seems to have recognized the signs of the times, and is carefully shifting towards the environmentalists. General Electric (GE), which makes household appliances, nuclear power station components and fighter jet engines, has doubled its budget for research in environmentally-friendly technology to $1.5 billion per year.

The motto of GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt is "green is green" -- a reference to the color of dollar notes because a lot of money can be made from environmental protection. Venture capital companies are investing billions in eco-technology, and the products are selling well. Companies are using all kinds of PR tricks to appear green, aware that a bad eco image could hurt their sales.

The US oil industry still occasionally runs disinformation campaigns such as "Carbon Dioxide -- they call it pollution, we call it life"  by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free trade lobby group. But it is increasingly introducing voluntary programs to cut CO2 emissions. "The debate about CO2 is changing," Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Shell, told the New York Times. "You can either fight it -- which is useless -- or you can see it as a business opportunity."

Skeptic Shermer also believes that the market is best placed to prevent climate disaster because it is far more flexible than government. "Legislative change almost always comes about slowly, and unless New York, Boston, and Florida are under water, it will be no different in this case," he said.