The Religion of Environmentalism

Why have climate change and global warming come to play such a dominant role in the policy debate? In the long history of environmentalism, which in its current incarnation is over 100 years old, many, many environmental issues of pressing concern have been identified, from habitat preservation to air and water pollution to toxins in products. At least in North America and Western Europe, strong, effective science-based policies have been implemented to address these issues.

Yet industrial pollution, unregulated over-development, degradation of soil and water, and human generated consumer waste continue to plague the environment, and more so in countries without effective regulations such as Russia, India, and China. In short, there are more than enough problems that need to be urgently addressed. Moreover, there are effective, science-based solutions available; all that is lacking is the political will to draw on them.

Climate change, as an all-encompassing theory with an apocalyptic eschatology, appropriates the symbolism of millenarian movements throughout history. The idea that there is an "ultimate" fate that is inevitable unless deeply meaningful modifications in human behavior take place, with its embrace of what we now call an ideology (once known as faith), is common to all religious movements, as is the idea of redemption through a unified system of knowledge handed down from a leader or a priesthood with special access to meaning. Since the apocalyptic threats are global in nature, everyone must be converted to the faith in order to avert disaster. Thus, two types of conquest are on offer: the conquest of the spirit through the infusion of a new belief system, and, in the case of environmentalism, the conquest of nature through application of the same technological method that evidently led to disaster in the first place.

Central to the religion of environmentalism is the belief that we now understand the basic dynamics of nature and its "systems" (propounded in such hypotheses as Gaia) as well as the concept of "wilderness". To complete the ideological circle, there must be a previous, errant religion to reject: this is the Enlightenment project of mastery over nature. The seeds of the Religion of Environmentalism lie in the Romantic rejection of the application of technology during the industrial revolution and the aesthetic degradation of nature.

In his brilliant book, The Conquest of Nature: Water, Landscape, and the Making of Modern Germany, David Blackbourn traces a variety of strands of environmentalism while elucidating the history of the hydrological revolution in Germany. The consequences of this vast engineering project are fascinating and paradoxical: of course, hydrological engineering created problems, including loss of wetlands and species, habitat fragmentation, and irreversible changes. Yet there are "other changes that were reversible and have in fact been reversed over the last thirty years, notably waterborne pollution and the whole German approach to flood control in river basins . . . reservoirs that became links in the flyways of migratory birds and are now managed as valuable ecosystems in their own right." Blackbourn also cites the example of the Salton Sea in the American southwest, "a disaster of human hydrological engineering gone wrong that now attracts more bird species than anywhere else in the continental United States."

Blackbourn quotes the environmental historian Richard White: "To call for a return to nature is posturing. It is a religious ritual in which the recantation of our sins and a pledge to sin no more promises to restore purity. Some people believe sins go away. History does not go away."

The "murderous attack on nature" purportedly pursued by humankind is now on trial, and climate change is the court of final appeal. However, by escalating the debate to the level of a global catastrophe, real, urgent, and destructive human-driven environmental problems may receive fewer resources. It is urgent that we keep the focus on the pressing environmental issues, and the US can lead the way on this. Just as the US presses China and Russia on human rights issues, US leadership should also exert pressure on India, Russian, China, and other countries to act responsibly on the basis of well-established environmental science. This is in our own interest: continental North America is in effect the world's biggest air scrubbing facility for Chinese pollution. Pollution of Russia's rivers and lakes damages other ecosystems in neighboring countries.

To the extent that anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric temperature variations are exacerbating natural changes with negative yet tractable consequences, we should act to counter these effects. But we don't need a apocalyptic counter-movement to urge us to action: the dramatic effects on humans,animals, and other species of pollution from coal-fired plants or industrial waste dumped in waters are quite sufficient grounds for action in the here and now. As Blackbourn's book shows, we cannot always anticipate the consequences of our actions and our philosophies, either positive or negative.

We cannot underestimate the resilience and adaptability of humans and other species to changes in the environment, but why test the limits? Just as the Germans of the 18th century sought a variety of benefits from the vast public works projects undertaken to tame the rivers, our own age seeks human development and the elimination of poverty, disease, and hunger, with access to the goods of modern life such as health care, mobility, choice, and freedom from want. Finding the balance between development and nature will require great ingenuity. The fanatical wing of Climate Change Inquisitors,who seek human punishment for past transgressions do not help.

Fortunately, there are scientists, thought leaders, and others who understand that fostering a healthy environment is about more than negative actions and limits. Recently I heard a lecture by Craig Ventner who described how microorganisms could be designed to produce fuel, a technology his company, Synthetic Genomics, is now working on. Who knows whether this will be successful and scalable? But it points to just one of the creative ways problems we think might only be addressed through the imposition of limits could be addressed otherwise. The company has raised $30 million so far and hired Aristides Patrinos, who directed the Energy Department's biological and environmental research. Ventner says that "genomics is going to do for the energy and chemical field what it did in the early 1990s for medical biotechnology."

Postscript: After writing this, I came across a brilliant Mark Steyn column from last year (on www.marksteyn.com, from the Chicago Sun Times March 4, 2007) with this passage:

"A couple of days before the Oscars, the Reverend Al gave a sell-out performance at the University of Toronto. “From my perspective, it is a form of religion,” said Bruce Crofts of the East Toronto Climate Action Group, who compared the former Vice-President to Jesus Christ, both men being (as The Globe And Mail put it) “great leaders who stepped forward when called upon by circumstance”. Unlike Christ, the Eco-Messiah can not yet walk on water, but then neither can the polar bears. However, only Al can survey the melting ice caps and turn water into whine. One lady unable to land a ticket frantically begged the University for an audience with His Goriness. As The National Post reported, “Her daughter hadn’t been able to sleep since seeing An Inconvenient Truth. She claimed that seeing Mr. Gore in person might make her daughter feel better.” Well, it worked for Leonardo Di Caprio."