climate

You are currently browsing the archive for the climate category.

Moralising about Climate Change Part 2

March 7, 2008 in climate by Paul Currion | 2 comments

Speaking of climate change, Steven Pinker’s recent article in the NYT on “The Moral Instinct” was a fascinating overview of the possible evolutionary roots / routes of morality (and it’s a safe bet that his next book will be along similar lines), but this puzzling conclusion was shoehorned into it:

And nowhere is moralization more of a hazard than in our greatest global challenge. The threat of human-induced climate change has become the occasion for a moralistic revival meeting. In many discussions, the cause of climate change is overindulgence (too many S.U.V.’s) and defilement (sullying the atmosphere), and the solution is temperance (conservation) and expiation (buying carbon offset coupons). Yet the experts agree that these numbers don’t add up: even if every last American became conscientious about his or her carbon emissions, the effects on climate change would be trifling, if for no other reason than that two billion Indians and Chinese are unlikely to copy our born-again abstemiousness.

The language he uses to pin the moral content of environmental arguments is impossible to argue against - although it does exist, the new puritanism of environmental activists is overstated (sorry, Charlie). How we label those concerns, however, has no bearing on whether these activities will make any difference, so Pinker shifts his focus to what “experts” agree. (Although once again, you can stuff your carbon offset coupons.)

Ignore the appeal to authority - experts may agree on a lot of things, but this is not necessarily one of them - but notice the dismissal of individual agency. We’re back to a weirdly utilitarian argument for in/action on environmental grounds, an argument which doesn’t really make any sense when you stare at it too hard. How and why?
Read the rest of this entry »

Moralising about Climate Change

March 4, 2008 in climate, politics, science by Paul Currion | 7 comments

In a Guardian interview, James Lovelock explains why he thinks that there’s no point in most of the environmental activities that we currently pursue. Or indeed, no point to most of the activities that we pursue.

… the current canon of eco ideas… [is] premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won’t make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

“It’s just too late for it,” he says. “Perhaps if we’d gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don’t have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can’t say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do.”

… What would Lovelock do now, I ask, if he were me? He smiles and says: “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”

Lovelock may or may not be correct that the apocalypse is knocking on our door, but is he correct that these sorts of activities - carbon offsetting, recycling, energy conservation and so forth - won’t make any difference?

No, he’s not, for at least four reasons.
Read the rest of this entry »