Terence Blacker: A guide to the new eco-religion
Once the church of Green Faith exists there will be no room for agnostics
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
So at last, it is official. Personal convictions about the environment are no longer to be regarded as matters of logic or science, but belong to the world of faith. As from this week, they are subject to the 2003 Religion and Belief Act. A belief in global warming has been put on the same legal footing as a belief in the resurrection or the existence of hell.
While the position regarding employment rights is now clear – you can refuse to do anything which offends your green beliefs, however daft – there is some uncertainty as to how this will impinge on our daily life.
Here, with the help of a green religious affairs adviser, are answers to the most pressing questions.
Will this be a formal new faith with a name?
Almost certainly. It will no longer enough to be vaguely concerned about the environment, to play one's part by doing a bit of recycling and cutting back on plastic bags. Once the Church of Green Faith has been established, there will be no room for agnostics or floating voters. Believers will be encouraged to go out and spread the message of fear and guilt wherever they go.
How will it be publicised?
There is already talk at the BBC of replacing Thought for the Day with Emission of the Day, in which one of the high priests of green faith – John Prescott, perhaps, or Stella McCartney – will deliver an environmental homily. The current requirement that the BBC should include at least one scary story about the state of the planet in every news bulletin will be more strictly enforced.
What about converting children to the faith?
This is all about our children and our grandchildren. We need to be able to able to look them in the eye and tell them that we did our duty as crusaders of green faith. In schools, footage of melting glaciers, worried-looking polar bears, chain-saws and dead fish will be shown at daily assemblies. Any child heard expressing unacceptable comments will be and reported to the authorities.
How will the new faith affect our everyday life?
Believers will be expected to engage in simple acts of green faith during their daily routines – while dividing their rubbish, for example, or estimating their daily carbon footprint. They might repeat words of environmental wisdom from Al Gore or Leonard di Caprio, or perhaps sing a song written by Sting. The Church of Green Faith will be campaigning that the phrase "for the sake of the planet and the future of our kids" should become part of daily discourse, the equivalent of the Muslim phrase "inhshallah".
What of the non-believers?
A campaign to discredit anyone who questions the government's green policies is already in place. Now that environmentalism is officially a faith, then unacceptable attitudes towards it will become legally blasphemous.
Those who refuse to accept the basic tenets of the faith will be obliged to fall into line with the right-thinking majority, for the sake of the planet and the future of our kids.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
We DO NOT have to behave just as consumers, grist to the multi-national corporations' mill. We could embrace the idea of treading lightly on the earth.
Peace & love
In Yehud, Ahura Mazda was renamed Yahweh. A couple of centuries later, the invading Macedonians already knew Ahura Mazda as Zeus, and omans called him Jupiter.
Thus we see that the blind hypotheses of one generation, propounded in the absence of evidence one way or the other, become dogma several centuries later.
The irony is, this time round, the hypotheses aren't blind; the effects of CO2 on thermal properties of the atmosphere, in the context of solar irradiation and thermal emissions from earth's surface, have been well understood for well over a century.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
Those inaccuracies were:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Please note that several of these admissions of error were made by official UK Government representatives.
Nonetheless G Brown still believes that we only have 50 days to save the WORLD: bit like 24hours to save the NHS.
And the UK government is now indulging in a £6m advertising campaign to scare the children witless with the CO2 ogre.
It is just as if that the political and some of the scientific establishment and Greens to a man/woman have collectively forgotten their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle.
Via plants, Carbon dioxide (CO2) a trace gas in the atmosphere + sunlight + water (H2O) creates and maintains the very Oxygen (O2) we all breath and creates carbohydrates, and thus all other organic compounds. That is the real stuff of life. Forget that and you negate the world’s life and thus mankind’s ability to exist on the planet earth.
Atmospheric CO2 is the stuff of all life an essential plant fertiliser and certainly not a pollutant. That’s why plants are already growing better in this marginally richer CO2 atmospheric environment. The starting point at the pre-industrial level of 280 parts / million was close to being so low that plants were stressed and at risk.
The Green issue to bigger than CO2 levels. Its all the other things humans are doing to impact the earth:
- fossil fuels take many hundreds of millions of years to convert, and a few days for humans to extract and consume.
- humans are causing massive amounts of deforestation, because one sort of crop is more valuable for ethanol.
- humans are causing massive amounts of chemical pollution by the use of pestacides, insectacides, fungacides
- chemical pollution is causing frogs, bees species to die. These are important species.
- chemical pollution is causing the seas to fill with jelly fish in massive amounts, impacting depleated fish stocks.
- air travel creates contrails over cities, reducing sun light (by upto 17%) from reaching ground level.
- human population is growing, there will be food wars as food security become an important factor. In Palestine, the Israeli gov takes 85% of water for its farms and gives 15% to the Palestinians farms. This is causing great deal of resentment from the Palestinian side.
- Humans (in the West, at present) waste about 25% of our food.
The Green movement tried to address all of the above and many other areas. So its much more than a worry about CO2 levels. The CO2 level issue is probably majority nature with an amount cause by humans.
We are on a one way street, we consume a lot, and our supplies are running out. We cannot sit back and say, its all nature, lets pull up a deck chair and watch the show...
It won't be long before splinter groups start to form just as in all other religions. Then we'll have some fun!
Remember the superb "The Life of Brian", with the Judean People's Front v the People's Front of Judea?
Can't wait!
If this case sets a precedent, then the phrase "based upon science" must be highly relevant.
The principle in this particular case did not hang on the strength or nature of Tim Nicholson's beliefs, but on the argument that it is wrong to dismiss anyone merely for their stance on any political or philosophical issue, particularly when that stance is both widely held and based upon generally accepted science.
We can argue about the science surrounding AGW, whether it might all turn out to be wrong and whether or not the risks have been exaggerated, but the fact is that a belief in it accords with the mainstream - i.e. majority - scientific view amongst climate scientists. Moreover, this view is the basis of government policy, legislation and international treaties, and it is therefore quite reasonable for someone to try to uphold the principles in their workplace without fear of being sacked for it. It is also quite unjustifiable to dismiss their views as akin to a religion (note the judge's phrase "as opposed, for example, to religion"), for which there is of course no basis at all in evidence, let alone scientific knowledge or theory.
But, I must object to edwarm's statement that "Atmospheric CO2 is the stuff of all life an essential plant fertiliser and certainly not a pollutant". There are plenty of examples of substances that are essential for life being considered a pollutant when present in above optimum concentrations. Nitrates, for example. Many organisms, including higher plants, take up nitrogen in the form of nitrates which then form the basis of amino acid and protein synthesis. Nitrates are naturally present in soil solution - generated for example by soil microbial breakdown of organic nitrogen compounds. Plants take them up from the soil solution which also provides a nutrient source for aquatic organisms when soil water percolates into streams and rivers. But in excess - resulting from excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizers for example - nitrates are considered to be serious pollutants, not only damaging terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems but also being carcinogenic in drinking water. Sulphur is another element essential to plant growth and naturally occurring in trace amounts in rainwater. But when in excess - as a result of the burning of fossil fuels for example - it forms acid rain, resulting in severe damage to forest and aquatic ecosystems, including wide-scale death of trees and complete eradication of fish and other organisms from watercourses.
So just because CO2 is essential for life it doesn't mean it can't be considered a pollutant when it reaches concentrations that produce undesirable effects on our environment.
A minority of Greens may be overzealous, but for the most part they are caring people of integrity. I don't 'believe' in global warming, I simply trust in the consensus of the scientific community that global warming is an issue we must face.
If what you write is true and not itself a prank, then it's sad that they have had to shoehorn this legislation in under the guise of 'religion'. I would prefer this government to protect people's right to maintain their personal integrity without forcing them to make up 'religions'.
Green principles could never be a religion because they are based on scientific opinion which changes as new scientific discoveries are made. Religions are based on tradition and dusty old books. Any Green who crosses the line into the realms of religion is 'New Age', 'Pagan', or whatever else. Green is not a religion, it is just being an 'ethical consumer'.
If more than the current 3% of the population chose to live like this, we wouldn't have to worry about global warming in the first place.
Imagine in the future, the life expectancy of humans would be 20+ years as the damage to the lungs by higher oxygeon levels would be catastrophic.
Also giant forest fires will sweep the planet !
Spiders in the bathroom ?
Well in an oxygeon rich environment they would be the size of dinner plates yeech !
Also who wants an ice age due to lack of CO2 ?
It is when nutters start talking about solar shields in space ,(meddling) I feel concern.
Besides it is junk science ,quack, quack !
I run the risk of burning at the stake by the eco inquisition for this comment I suppose.
They will be wearing pointy hats next i am sure.
Who says that the alternative to CO2 rising by a few millimoles in the atmosphere - sufficient to cause very serious global warming - is an atmosphere with dangerously high levels of oxygen? When CO2 levels were very high (initially up to 10% of the atmosphere compared to about 0.04% now) forests did indeed "sweep the planet" - soaking up CO2 and producing oxygen, although the forests were mainly composed of huge fern-like plants rather than today's trees. The coal we have been burning over the last couple of centuries was mostly formed from this accumulating plant material, during a period between about 200 and 300 million years ago (oil was formed 10-150 million years ago). But this period of coal formation was many millions of years before conditions on the planet were suitable for life as we know it, and the first true mammals only appeared about 65 million years ago (Homo sapiens trailed in way behind, about 200,000 years ago).
Current levels of atmospheric CO2 may well be higher than at any time in the last 420,000 years, so we're not too worried about bringing on an ice age if we were to return them to beginning of 20th century levels, or even pre-industrial levels 150-200 years ago.
Just think: the EU started as a body for the trade of coal, gas and other stuff. Now we have the EU making laws for us, and most of the EU using a single currency, like a big superstate.
So maybe the same thing could happen with Al Gore and his Carbon Credit Trading... Soon it could start making laws, all for our own good of course, that restrict population growth, prevent the Third World from developing an industrial base of any kind and generally tax us for emitting CO2.
The official religion could be that of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) as you describe above, and if you dissent or promote any heresy on the matter you can be detained without charge and subjected to the inquisition or something...
So we'd have no nation states, no borders or silly wars, a dwindling population under the care of a small elite of Carbon Barons, maybe with a nod to pseudo democracy, living lo-tech peasant-like lives.
Sounds fun.