It’s important to be honest - an honest broker. So, are you seeing dishonesty being practiced in this thread - somewhere? Dishonesty is the intentional practice of deception - correct?
Its possible to misunderstand something and express it but that’s not deception - that is error. I don’t believe any of the Mitra’s on this thread have intended to decieve - including me and you!
Regarding the suggestion that has been repeated ‘ad nauseam’ that, the climate change issue is just ‘political’ and, therefore an inappropriate interest for monastics etc., I don’t accept that ‘belief’.
Concerned citizens are free to express an opinion when they feel the need with regard to the state of the environment and its implications for the welfare of sentient beings. That is what happens in liberal democracies - it’s standard practice. As far as I know, that is all Bhikku Bodhi has done?
I believe he is a spokesperson for a Buddhist umbrella group in America.
If you would like to 
-t a heterodox bi-partisan Buddhist umbrella group you may have an opportunity to share your views at the U.N. - as long as you’re group consists of more than one individual (or 3).
If you have an alternative view from Bhikku Bodhi - on the same issue - you are entitled to speak freely. As to whether your views have a political impact is something else again. You may be ignored!
The renowned Physicist ‘Stephen Hawking’ believes this issue has become so serious that we need to make evacuation plans ‘sooner rather than later’. N.A.S.A. - the space agency - after making its assessment of the climate change issue would like to accelerate its Mars-Program to establish a colony there ASAP - as there seems to be good reason to believe (according to their assessment) that an ecospheric meltdown is a very real possibility in the near future.
You may take issue with intellectual light-weights like Pr. Hawking or N.A.S.A. (with their satellite technology and billion dollar budgets) - that is perfectly in order. It might be the subject for another thread (if you care to enlighten)?
Whether our views and opinions are acted on in the sphere of political manouverings is one thing and, our opinions - informed or otherwise - is something else again. There is a difference between policy development and policy implementation.
There are academics that are focused on sustainable development policy and others are involved in science and technology. There are collaborative efforts that incorporate sustainable development policy, technological innovation and science.
The professionals involved in this collaboration are not politicians. Politicians are free to take their professional advice and utilise their specialised skills and abilities if they feel the need.
What are these professionals doing with their time? They make a full assessment of the nature of an issue - a challenge - that requires a careful and considered response. I am calling this ‘practical problem solving’.
Practical problems may require all sorts of solutions. For instance, cheap, efficient, environment- friendly technology and energy solutions for the developing world. How to assist poorer countries in meeting their needs - sustainably. How developed countries can meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets and move towards sustainable development etc.
A range of policy responses are usually developed for consideration. We can think of this as 'Plan A., Plan B. etc. Many policy challenges require various complimentary approaches to the same set of recognised needs and requirements.
We know that politicians often ignore Earth-friendly policies as they do not serve their perceived political interests. They can be rewarded for there service to powerful interests (like the fossil-fuel industry) that is resistant to sustainable change that does not involve their Earth-toxic products.
As Buddhists, we know that awakened beings see the teachings clearly and the rest of us do the best we can.
I do not believe the perspectives I have expressed in this thread - about Buddhism - are at odds with the teachings in the EBT’s. They simply involve thinking about the meaning and implications of the teachings from a variety of perspectives.
I am not a ‘literalist’ or a fundamentalist Buddhist. It’s not just the literal meaning of words and teachings but also the context in which they are found that needs to be understood?
I believe there is room for a diversity of views with regard to what the Buddha tried to convey as best he could for our benefit. Therefore, I also believe in heterodoxy. This does not mean that all views should be seen as equally valid, sound and, reasonable.
There are some politicians in the U.S.A. senate who would give short-shrift to ‘Bhikku Bodhi’s’ heart-felt convictions because he is a Buddhist and, therefore, beyond the saving grace of their all-loving God. Others (like the President of the U.S.A.) would see the Venerable’s analyses as ‘bad for America’ for reasons we are all sadly aware of?
We may imbibe different interpretations from - or through - the Sangha’s we associate with? For instance, different Sangha-groups have different views with regard to sexism and human rights.
In Myanmar - and elsewhere - there are Sangha-groups that have their own ‘views’ about religious tolerance. They are views that many western Sangha’s disagree with - for obvious reasons. Some western ‘theravada’ sangha-groups have made their views known. Is this dabbling in politics or just a sane and healthy response to a crisis situation?
The Buddha also criticized other forms of teaching and practice in his society. He found fault with the lifestyles that were an integral part of the culture and political dynamics of his day and age. This was/is as it should be - IMO.
