[Reader-list] (no subject)

Wed Feb 16 00:01:14 IST 2005

(fwd) Mocking our dreams
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Next_1108492274---0-203.199.83.39-3495"

 This is a multipart mime message

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

=20=20

Mocking our dreams

The reality of climate change is that the engines of progress have merely a=
ccelerated our rush to the brink

George Monbiot
Tuesday February 15, 2005
The Guardian

It is now mid-February, and already I have sown 11 species of vegetable. I =
know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. E=
verything in this country - daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees,=
 nesting birds - is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Wint=
er is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this co=
untry suffered in 1982 and 1963 are, unless the Gulf Stream stops, unlikely=
 to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper nort=
hern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us.

And this is surely one of the reasons why we find it so hard to accept what=
 the climatologists are now telling us. In our mythologies, an early spring=
 is a reward for virtue. "For, lo, the winter is past," Solomon, the belove=
d of God, exults. "The rain is over and gone; The flowers appear on the ear=
th; the time of the singing of birds is come." How can something which feel=
s so good result from something so bad?

Tomorrow, after 13 years of negotiation, the Kyoto protocol on climate chan=
ge comes into force. No one believes that this treaty alone - which commits=
 30 developed nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 4.8% - wi=
ll solve the problem. It expires in 2012 and, thanks to US sabotage, there =
has so far been no progress towards a replacement. It paroles the worst off=
enders, the US and Australia, and imposes no limits on the gases produced b=
y developing countries. The cuts it enforces are at least an order of magni=
tude too small to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at anything appro=
aching a safe level. But even this feeble agreement is threatened by our co=
mplacency about the closing of the climatic corridor down which we walk.

Why is this? Why are we transfixed by terrorism, yet relaxed about the coll=
apse of the conditions that make our lives possible? One reason is surely t=
he disjunction between our expectations and our observations. If climate ch=
ange is to introduce horror into our lives, we would expect - because throu=
ghout our evolutionary history we survived by finding patterns in nature - =
to see that horror beginning to unfold. It is true that a few thousand peop=
le in the rich world have died as a result of floods and heatwaves. But the=
 overwhelming sensation, experienced by all of us, almost every day, is tha=
t of being blessed by our pollution.

Instead, the consequences of our gluttony are visited on others. The climat=
ologists who met at the government's conference in Exeter this month heard =
that a rise of just 2.1 degrees, almost certain to happen this century, wil=
l confront as many as 3 billion people with water stress. This, in turn, is=
 likely to result in tens of millions of deaths. But the same calm voice th=
at tells us climate change means mild winters and early springs informs us,=
 in countries like the UK, that we will be able to buy our way out of troub=
le. While the price of food will soar as the world goes into deficit, those=
 who are rich enough to have caused the problem will, for a couple of gener=
ations at least, be among the few who can afford to ignore it.

Another reason is that there is a well-funded industry whose purpose is to =
reassure us, and it is granted constant access to the media. We flatter its=
 practitioners with the label "sceptics". If this is what they were, they w=
ould be welcome. Scepticism (the Latin word means "inquiring" or "reflectiv=
e") is the means by which science advances. Without it we would still be ru=
bbing sticks together. But most of those we call sceptics are nothing of th=
e kind. They are PR people, the loyalists of Exxon Mobil (by whom most of t=
hem are paid), commissioned to begin with a conclusion and then devise argu=
ments to justify it. Their presence on outlets such as the BBC's Today prog=
ramme might be less objectionable if, every time Aids was discussed, someon=
e was asked to argue that it is not caused by HIV, or, every time a rocket =
goes into orbit, the Flat Earth Society was invited to explain that it coul=
d not possibly have happened. As it is, our most respected media outlets gi=
ve Exxon Mobil what it has paid for: they create the impression that a sign=
ificant scientific debate exists when it does not.

But there's a much bigger problem here. The denial of climate change, while=
 out of tune with the science, is consistent with, even necessary for, the =
outlook of almost all the world's economists. Modern economics, whether inf=
ormed by Marx or Keynes or Hayek, is premised on the notion that the planet=
 has an infinite capacity to supply us with wealth and absorb our pollution=
. The cure to all ills is endless growth. Yet endless growth, in a finite w=
orld, is impossible. Pull this rug from under the economic theories, and th=
e whole system of thought collapses.

And this, of course, is beyond contemplation. It mocks the dreams of both l=
eft and right, of every child and parent and worker. It destroys all notion=
s of progress. If the engines of progress - technology and its amplificatio=
n of human endeavour - have merely accelerated our rush to the brink, then =
everything we thought was true is false. Brought up to believe that it is b=
etter to light a candle than to curse the darkness, we are now discovering =
that it is better to curse the darkness than to burn your house down.

Our economists are exposed by climatologists as utopian fantasists, the lea=
ders of a millenarian cult as mad as, and far more dangerous than, any reli=
gious fundamentalism. But their theories govern our lives, so those who ins=
ist that physics and biology still apply are ridiculed by a global consensu=
s founded on wishful thinking.

And this leads us, I think, to a further reason for turning our eyes away. =
When terrorists threaten us, it shows that we must count for something, tha=
t we are important enough to kill. They confirm the grand narrative of our =
lives, in which we strive through thickets of good and evil towards an ulti=
mate purpose. But there is no glory in the threat of climate change. The st=
ory it tells us is of yeast in a barrel, feeding and farting until it is po=
isoned by its own waste. It is too squalid an ending for our anthropocentri=
c conceit to accept.

The challenge of climate change is not, primarily, a technical one. It is p=
ossible greatly to reduce our environmental impact by investing in energy e=
fficiency, though as the Exeter conference concluded, "energy efficiency im=
provements under the present market system are not enough to offset increas=
es in demand caused by economic growth". It is possible to generate far mor=
e of the energy we consume by benign means. But if our political leaders ar=
e to save the people rather than the people's fantasies, then the way we se=
e ourselves must begin to shift. We will succeed in tackling climate change=
 only when we accept that we belong to the material world.

www.monbiot.com=20
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

&nbsp; 
 
 
Mocking our dreams 
 
The reality of climate change is that the engines of progress have merely a=
ccelerated our rush to the brink 
 
George Monbiot 
Tuesday February 15, 2005 
The Guardian 
 
It is now mid-February, and already I have sown 11 species of vegetable. I =
know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. E=
verything in this country - daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees,=
 nesting birds - is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Wint=
er is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this co=
untry suffered in 1982 and 1963 are, unless the Gulf Stream stops, unlikely=
 to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper nort=
hern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us. 
 
And this is surely one of the reasons why we find it so hard to accept what=
 the climatologists are now telling us. In our mythologies, an early spring=
 is a reward for virtue. &quot;For, lo, the winter is past,&quot; Solomon, =
the beloved of God, exults. &quot;The rain is over and gone; The flowers ap=
pear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come.&quot; How can =
something which feels so good result from something so bad? 
 
Tomorrow, after 13 years of negotiation, the Kyoto protocol on climate chan=
ge comes into force. No one believes that this treaty alone - which commits=
 30 developed nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 4.8% - wi=
ll solve the problem. It expires in 2012 and, thanks to US sabotage, there =
has so far been no progress towards a replacement. It paroles the worst off=
enders, the US and Australia, and imposes no limits on the gases produced b=
y developing countries. The cuts it enforces are at least an order of magni=
tude too small to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at anything appro=
aching a safe level. But even this feeble agreement is threatened by our co=
mplacency about the closing of the climatic corridor down which we walk. 
 
Why is this? Why are we transfixed by terrorism, yet relaxed about the coll=
apse of the conditions that make our lives possible? One reason is surely t=
he disjunction between our expectations and our observations. If climate ch=
ange is to introduce horror into our lives, we would expect - because throu=
ghout our evolutionary history we survived by finding patterns in nature - =
to see that horror beginning to unfold. It is true that a few thousand peop=
le in the rich world have died as a result of floods and heatwaves. But the=
 overwhelming sensation, experienced by all of us, almost every day, is tha=
t of being blessed by our pollution. 
 
Instead, the consequences of our gluttony are visited on others. The climat=
ologists who met at the government's conference in Exeter this month heard =
that a rise of just 2.1 degrees, almost certain to happen this century, wil=
l confront as many as 3 billion people with water stress. This, in turn, is=
 likely to result in tens of millions of deaths. But the same calm voice th=
at tells us climate change means mild winters and early springs informs us,=
 in countries like the UK, that we will be able to buy our way out of troub=
le. While the price of food will soar as the world goes into deficit, those=
 who are rich enough to have caused the problem will, for a couple of gener=
ations at least, be among the few who can afford to ignore it. 
 
Another reason is that there is a well-funded industry whose purpose is to =
reassure us, and it is granted constant access to the media. We flatter its=
 practitioners with the label &quot;sceptics&quot;. If this is what they we=
re, they would be welcome. Scepticism (the Latin word means &quot;inquiring=
&quot; or &quot;reflective&quot;) is the means by which science advances. W=
ithout it we would still be rubbing sticks together. But most of those we c=
all sceptics are nothing of the kind. They are PR people, the loyalists of =
Exxon Mobil (by whom most of them are paid), commissioned to begin with a c=
onclusion and then devise arguments to justify it. Their presence on outlet=
s such as the BBC's Today programme might be less objectionable if, every t=
ime Aids was discussed, someone was asked to argue that it is not caused by=
 HIV, or, every time a rocket goes into orbit, the Flat Earth Society was i=
nvited to explain that it could not possibly have happened. As it is, our m=
ost respected media outlets give Exxon Mobil what it has paid for: they cre=
ate the impression that a significant scientific debate exists when it does=
 not. 
 
But there's a much bigger problem here. The denial of climate change, while=
 out of tune with the science, is consistent with, even necessary for, the =
outlook of almost all the world's economists. Modern economics, whether inf=
ormed by Marx or Keynes or Hayek, is premised on the notion that the planet=
 has an infinite capacity to supply us with wealth and absorb our pollution=
. The cure to all ills is endless growth. Yet endless growth, in a finite w=
orld, is impossible. Pull this rug from under the economic theories, and th=
e whole system of thought collapses. 
 
And this, of course, is beyond contemplation. It mocks the dreams of both l=
eft and right, of every child and parent and worker. It destroys all notion=
s of progress. If the engines of progress - technology and its amplificatio=
n of human endeavour - have merely accelerated our rush to the brink, then =
everything we thought was true is false. Brought up to believe that it is b=
etter to light a candle than to curse the darkness, we are now discovering =
that it is better to curse the darkness than to burn your house down. 
 
Our economists are exposed by climatologists as utopian fantasists, the lea=
ders of a millenarian cult as mad as, and far more dangerous than, any reli=
gious fundamentalism. But their theories govern our lives, so those who ins=
ist that physics and biology still apply are ridiculed by a global consensu=
s founded on wishful thinking. 
 
And this leads us, I think, to a further reason for turning our eyes away. =
When terrorists threaten us, it shows that we must count for something, tha=
t we are important enough to kill. They confirm the grand narrative of our =
lives, in which we strive through thickets of good and evil towards an ulti=
mate purpose. But there is no glory in the threat of climate change. The st=
ory it tells us is of yeast in a barrel, feeding and farting until it is po=
isoned by its own waste. It is too squalid an ending for our anthropocentri=
c conceit to accept. 
 
The challenge of climate change is not, primarily, a technical one. It is p=
ossible greatly to reduce our environmental impact by investing in energy e=
fficiency, though as the Exeter conference concluded, &quot;energy efficien=
cy improvements under the present market system are not enough to offset in=
creases in demand caused by economic growth&quot;. It is possible to genera=
te far more of the energy we consume by benign means. But if our political =
leaders are to save the people rather than the people's fantasies, then the=
 way we see ourselves must begin to shift. We will succeed in tackling clim=
ate change only when we accept that we belong to the material world. 
 
www.monbiot.com=20

 
<A target=3D"_blank" HREF=3D"http://clients.rediff.com/signature/track_sig.=
asp"><IMG DEFANGED_SRC=3D"http://ads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.c=
gi/www.rediffmail.com/inbox.htm at Bottom" BORDER=3D0 VSPACE=3D0 HSPACE=3D0></=
a>