The Catechism of Climate Change
Living here in London, it’s difficult not to be seized by the sheer intensity of the public debate focusing on global warming. The Stern Review, released late last year, examined its potential negative impact on the world economy. The Labour government has just announced a series of initiatives to tackle the problem. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying that dealing with climate change was as great a challenge for this generation as the battle to defeat Fascism and Communism had been for the last. Even the Mayor of London has fleshed out plans to turn the capital green.
We are reminded, constantly, almost incessantly, and sometimes in dire terms, of what might come. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is viewed as received wisdom. We need, all of us, to reduce our carbon footprint. We need to go green, the orthodoxy pronounces.
There’s significantly less coverage of these related issues back in Singapore, perhaps reflecting that reality that its saliency there is more limited, both among the people and in government as well. But it is a real concern, and this past winter, notable for how mild it’s been, presented opportunities many for individuals to make an explicit link with global climate change, regardless of whether there’s actually a clear, causal relationship, or whether it’s just a seasonal blip.
I don’t sit on the fence here, but am happy nonetheless to be in the middle of the road, rather than on the far end, where this issue is concerned. I recognize that our climate is indeed changing. But that’s not what disturbing me this past few weeks, and which prompted this posting. Rather, what’s striking about the public debate – especially if we view it through a social constructivist angle – is how the mantra of climate change has come to form almost a secular religion in this country. Challenge it at your peril. There's no room, it seems, for skepticism or doubt.
If one seeks to be in public life, it’s as though one needs to proclaim an unswerving devotion to a belief that the earth is heading for hell, and that radical and rapid action was necessary, right away. To depart from the path in any way constitutes utter heresy. Surely that shouldn’t be the way. To me, it’s not so much that concerns for climate are wrong, but that it seems to be occupying such a disproportionate amount of attention. Environmentalism and green issues span different facets. Yet, it’s only global warming - specifically, the belief in extreme interpretations of the trend - that has managed successfully to capture such strong scrutiny, serving as a necessary litmus test to demonstrate how enlightened one is.
It’s become a political tool over which to beat one’s opponents, a moral instrument to proclaim one’s holiness, and a central tenet of belief for all who wish to establish themselves as right-minded progressive citizens. There’s a positive side to caring for the environment. But I think somewhere along the way, the rhetorical balance has been lost. And that, I feel, is a real shame for the quality of discourse in the public sphere.
We are reminded, constantly, almost incessantly, and sometimes in dire terms, of what might come. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is viewed as received wisdom. We need, all of us, to reduce our carbon footprint. We need to go green, the orthodoxy pronounces.
There’s significantly less coverage of these related issues back in Singapore, perhaps reflecting that reality that its saliency there is more limited, both among the people and in government as well. But it is a real concern, and this past winter, notable for how mild it’s been, presented opportunities many for individuals to make an explicit link with global climate change, regardless of whether there’s actually a clear, causal relationship, or whether it’s just a seasonal blip.
I don’t sit on the fence here, but am happy nonetheless to be in the middle of the road, rather than on the far end, where this issue is concerned. I recognize that our climate is indeed changing. But that’s not what disturbing me this past few weeks, and which prompted this posting. Rather, what’s striking about the public debate – especially if we view it through a social constructivist angle – is how the mantra of climate change has come to form almost a secular religion in this country. Challenge it at your peril. There's no room, it seems, for skepticism or doubt.
If one seeks to be in public life, it’s as though one needs to proclaim an unswerving devotion to a belief that the earth is heading for hell, and that radical and rapid action was necessary, right away. To depart from the path in any way constitutes utter heresy. Surely that shouldn’t be the way. To me, it’s not so much that concerns for climate are wrong, but that it seems to be occupying such a disproportionate amount of attention. Environmentalism and green issues span different facets. Yet, it’s only global warming - specifically, the belief in extreme interpretations of the trend - that has managed successfully to capture such strong scrutiny, serving as a necessary litmus test to demonstrate how enlightened one is.
It’s become a political tool over which to beat one’s opponents, a moral instrument to proclaim one’s holiness, and a central tenet of belief for all who wish to establish themselves as right-minded progressive citizens. There’s a positive side to caring for the environment. But I think somewhere along the way, the rhetorical balance has been lost. And that, I feel, is a real shame for the quality of discourse in the public sphere.
1 Comments:
At long last, a topic I am familiar with. Well put especially the last para. Perhaps you should be helping me in some essays or even better taking some of my exams on my behalf.
Perhaps the thinking of us EA's are similar and certainly very different from the EU's. There are lots of political mileage at stake and in my opinion, that's the main driver. It would be political suicide for any leader over here not to embrace green policies. Nevertheless, the sad truth (assuming available data are not doctored) is pointing to the picture that is being painted over here although the seriousness of future outcome depends on the scenario one wishes to adopt.
sw
Post a Comment
<< Home