God and global warming
Religious language inevitably angles its way into political debates these days, and few global debates are being fought quite to vociferously as the climate change controversy. While some commentators appeal to God-talk to bolster their environmental arguments, others say God has been abducted for ideological purposes. In this week's Radio 4 Analysis programme, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s 'Ethical Man' Justin Rowlatt asks, "Are environmentalists bad for the planet?". (Listen here).
In , Analysis producer Helen Grady wonders why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion.
Comment number 1.
At 30th Jan 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:If god had wanted man to live in the cold, he would have created him with a fur coat like the lower animals. Causing global warming by burning fossil fuels is doing god's work. That is why he created them, for us to burn and make the world warmer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 1st Feb 2010, oldredeyes wrote:A comparison is merely a comparison.
The warnings which are emanating from the science of climate change can be compared to the warnings which religious demagogues have been spouting since time immemorial. Indeed, it is true that warning someone that their actions will end in tragedy is remarkably similar to warning someone that their actions will end in tragedy. Big deal.
The Bible can be compared to Tales from the Arabian Nights. Religion can be compared to fossilised thinking, or to a virus. Religious leaders can be compared to snake-oil salesmen.
I do not believe that Moses or Jesus had anything to say about climate change being accelerated by overuse of fossil fuels, nor that a switch to green energy is imperative. I don't think that either of them knew anything about the science of climate change. So the comparison between religious sermons and environmental warnings is just so much hot air.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 1st Feb 2010, Heliopolitan wrote:My interest in global warming has been piqued by Bjorn Lomborg's book "Cool It", in which he argues (very well, although perhaps with a few too many soundbites) that the Gore models of climate change by the end of the century are wildly askew of the findings of the IPCC, and while AGW *is* occurring, principally due to fossil fuel usage, solving the problem by cutting emissions is probably the wrong way to deal with it. I can't say I'm completely convinced by all his arguments, but he does make a very good case. Perhaps we should be protecting people now, putting our money into sanitation, disease prevention, economic and environmental stabilisation and improvement, so that by 2100 we will have a richer, healthier, more technologically developed world that will be better able to tackle the problems that occur.
If the Haitian earthquake had been a hurricane (as has happened before of course), it would have been blamed on global warming, but the massive loss of life can principally be attributed to the awful societal conditions in which ordinary Haitians are forced by economic necessity to live. We can do a far better job in the future by protecting ourselves against what the planet can and will throw at us, rather than adopting very costly measures that will achieve very little, but leave us in a worse position to tackle the problems when they will arise.
Thought-provoking stuff.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 1st Feb 2010, graham veale wrote:Is Bjorn the guy with the beard from 'Abba'?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 1st Feb 2010, Heliopolitan wrote:No - that's Bjesus. :-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 1st Feb 2010, will8ace wrote:An excellent show from Justin Rowlatt. It's nice to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ telling the truth for a change. Fascism is not pretty.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)