Climate change as religion

Here's the follow-up to the review I wrote yesterday. Lawson discusses "climate change" as a religion in his final chapter. It's not a completely original thought, but something worth considering. Since I firmly believe that faith can be part of the path to truth, such a comparison should not be viewed as inherently "climate change sceptic". Most of the discussion of this topic that I've seen has come from that angle: I'm more interested in what it has to tell us about faith.

For, viewed dispassionately, the appreciation of the issues surrounding climate change within the population at large seems to have a huge amount in common with pre-reformation Catholicism. There is, for example, a raft of superstitious practices intended to reduce carbon emissions: getting rid of all those evil "on standby" devices, turning off unused lights, walking to the shops instead of driving, and so on. None of these is bad in its own right, but, really, they are not going to make very much difference to the climate - certainly not the individual's actions, and perhaps not even the actions of a whole small nation. Then there's that practice beloved of industries wanting to establish their green credentials, spreading also to other air travellers: carbon offsetting. This resembles so closely the sale of indulgences that there's probably a whole theology essay to be written about it. During "live eight" a year or two ago, weeping celebrities on stage urged us, with tears, to repent from our carbon consuming ways and to live carbon-neutral lives. The atmosphere resembled nothing more closely than a religious rally. Again, the connection to the real science was tenuous in the extreme.

For this would-be religion, the sacred text is, of course, the IPCC Assessment Reports. These are pored over diligently by the scribes, but few ordinary people have actually read the original documents. Instead, most people rely on selected fragments, chosen to make a particular point, or on third party interpretations, or even on myths and conjectures which surround the topic but have no basis, or may have been in an earlier version but were long ago rejected from the authentic canon. Few could tell you the details of the projected climate change - many still think we are chiefly trying to save the ozone layer. Whether we are to be swamped by a tsunami, battered by icebergs, scorched in a northern european desert, few could tell you. And many people would be a little vague on whether it is expected to take 10, 100, or 1000 years.

[As an aside, when this article first appeared, a few days ago, the author had taken decadal temperature differences of, for example, 0.52 C, and "converted" them into 32.94 F. Maybe they can be forgiven as being the skeleton holiday staff, but this is an elementary error. If a journalist on a serious newspaper can suggest unblinkingly that temperatures have risen by 32 degrees fahrenheit in a decade, what hope is there of a reasoned understanding of the data?]

A select body of "climate scientists" form the priesthood. Their interpretation is the only correct one - even though we are actually discussing a vast range of sciences (from atmospheric physics to plant biology, and many points in between), and few excel in the subjects on which they pontificate. Dissent is to be eliminated; sceptics ritually burned (at least metaphorically -their careers, at least, to suffer).

There are a great many who do not really undertstand, but are nevertheless full of zeal, and good deeds. Their low-carbon lifestyles are worn on their sleeves, inconvenient lapses (well, I really did have to go to Australia) kept under wraps. (Conversely, I know of serious climate scientists who have been excoriated by their colleagues for daring to fly to attend a conference.) They will happily buy nonsense plug-in devices designed to make your fridge burn less electricity (!?); some will happily dispose of perfectly good appliances to buy low-emissions ones (never mind the energy cost in creating them).

And, of course, where there is belief, there is doubt. Climate change gives rise to plenty of unbelievers, who will laugh at the folly of the faithful, who will scoff at the inconsistencies in the arguments. Some will even understand (and reject) the authoritative texts better than the zealous believers. The topic isn't really amenable to out-and-out proof: evidence can be proposed, and dismissed.

This may appear a frivolous comparison, but on close inspection, the whole shebang seems disarmingly close to our systems of religion. Perhaps the sociologists could tell us why. It strikes me that sooner or later, the belief system surrounding climate change will undergo a major reformation (maybe involving the repudiation of indulgences): in the compressed kind of history we enjoy these days, will there later be a great emergence of funky postmodern climate change enthusiasts?

Perhaps I'm just an unreconstructed modernist when it comes to science. I find it hard to get enthusiastic about postmodern epistemologies for hard data. And yet the science of climate change is a near-perfect illustration of quite how the real practice of science can (and generally does) diverge from the "ideal" of a diligent process of making hypotheses, testing them, revising them, and testing again. The reality gives the lie to the naive philosophy of Dawkins and his friends: this is a much more interesting and diverse conversation than he would allow.

Perhaps the similarity in cult surrounding climate change on the one hand, and traditional faith on the other, points more to an innate (or learned?!) need to understand how we have erred, and how we may be saved; how we may swap destructive consumptive practices for life-affirming human-scale relational ones. Both are aiming to add to the sum total of human happiness: by teaching us to love God and our neighbour, or by avoiding the devastation which could come from an out-of-control climate. There's probably room for both, but I think that if we lazily imagine that the forms of dialogue which suit the one will also suit the other (and allow them to hold sway), we shall be the poorer, I think.


[not sure if I'm rambling there. This isn't a well-formed essay. Only a blog. Sorry. Comments welcome!]