Freeman Dyson on Global Warming
All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
Dyson is not a global warming denier, but he is an advocate of looking at all aspects of the problem, and especially for looking for real solutions that offer a net benefit. I strongly urge you to read the whole peice, which talks extensively about different options for combating global warming and the costs and benefits of those options. It also ties into the discussion of biofuels.
I don’t have a problem with the weak form of environmentalism as religion. Generally speaking, I believe it is a good moral practice to be stewards of the Earth and that we should care for our environment and hopefully leave it better for future generations. Although it is not the only moral good, it is an important component of overall morality.
There is a strong from of environmentalism as religion though, that I don’t have a lot of patience for. It is characterized by hatred of anything heretical and at its most extreme levels a hatred for humanity. It holds that there is no other moral good but environmental good and nothing else matters. It reminds me of the more extreme fundamentalists branches of Christianity or radical Jihadist Islam. The beliefs are somewhat different, but the mindset is the same. This ideology is something that I believe we must oppose, and should society decide to embrace it further, I expect that the horrors of the worst of the 20th century ideologies will pale in the face of this new one. There is nothing that a ‘righteous’ person will hesitate to do in the cause of good, however dreadful it might seem.
In any event, read Dyson’s whole piece. He is one of the great thinkers of our time, and we owe it to our selves to pay attention to such people.
