A practical response to global warming

It has been suggested that, in a situation of great uncertainty over a vital issue, we should adopt Blaise Pascal’s strategy. Pascal famously argued that, in a situation in which it could not be proved either that God exists or that he does not exist, with the evidence for and against the question broadly speaking balanced, the rational thing to do is to gamble on his existence. If we win we shall escape judgment, and if we lose there won’t be a judgment to escape. Whereas if we gamble on his non-existence, we shall suffer punishment if we are wrong and be obliterated if we are correct, and we have a 50-50 chance of being wrong.

So, perhaps, in Pascalian fashion, in a situation of radical uncertainty, coupled with the possibly dangerous consequences of inaction, we should gamble on the global warming ‘scientific consensus’ being correct.

The trouble with Pascal’s wager is that there is not just one alternative, atheism or theism. So it’s not a case of a straight wager for or against ‘God’, for this raises the question ‘Which god ought I to wager on?’

And similarly with global warming. Suppose that we are inclined to gamble on the planet’s future by going with the ‘scientific consensus’. Then we need to get clear what such a bet implies. The trouble is that those who warn against global warming offer many prescriptions, some sensible, some plain daft. Not all of them are consistent.

Global capitalism

Perhaps we should blame global capitalism for global warming. Perhaps we should support the imposition of taxes and tariffs, or restrict trade in other ways. Perhaps the practice of growing food in poor Africa and flying it to the rich West should be outlawed, oil exploration and exploitation abandoned, logging forbidden or strictly controlled. Global capitalism no doubt has its faults, but it is in the business of satisfying demand, the various demands of its customers. The more customers that Tesco has, and the more choices made for Tesco’s products, then the better for Tesco. Tesco and its global capitalistic friends follow demand like trade used to follow the flag. If we stop demanding cheap (or not so cheap) fresh French beans in February then Tesco will quickly cease offering them to us.

But don’t Tesco and the other multinationals create demand? Don’t they invent things for us to buy? They most certainly do. Don’t they impose these newly-invented products on us? Aren’t they part of a tyrannical conspiracy? To which questions the answer is: most certainly not. Global capitalism is accountable to us. If we don’t want the newly-invented products of ‘neocapitalism’ then we don’t buy them. Capitalism is not morally perverse, it’s morally neutral — much more so than governments and international agencies. Perhaps Tesco satisfies demands that we ought not to have. But that’s a rather different issue. If it does, then who’s to blame?

The market

Perhaps it’s not tyrannical global providers but ‘mechanistic’ free markets that are to be blamed for global warming. Markets, of course, convey immeasurable benefits to us. They identify our demands and supply them, bringing inventor, manufacturer, seller and buyer together in a way in which no other humanly-devised schemes do. But maybe the market is also a harmful institution. Maybe ‘Global warming is the earth’s judgment on the global market economy’.

There are some serious misunderstandings about the market. One important one is that the market panders to our selfishness. So maybe climate change is due to selfishness, pure and simple. We curb our selfishness by shutting down or ‘regulating’ the market which satisfies it. So this prescription involves curbing the market, bringing in rationing, banning certain products, and so on.

Certainly the market is concerned with demand, but why is all demand selfish? ‘Selfishness’ suggests actions that intend to deprive others of what is rightfully theirs. Is there any reason to think that a mother who buys bread or trainers for her children is being selfish?

But there’s another reason to protect the markets, and the freedom of new providers to enter markets, a freedom easily eroded, particularly by corrupt governments. If we are to be rescued from global warming by our own efforts then it is the market that must come to our rescue. What’s the solution to this burgeoning, wasteful demand for oil and gas? It’s the solution that the market provides, one that is ruthlessly efficient. If oil begins to run out, its market price will rise, perhaps very sharply. Other forms of propulsion will become relatively cheaper, and the market will reward ingenious and inventive entrepreneurs who make petrol engines run more efficiently, or who invent and produce new types of fuel, and new forms of propulsion. Life will change, but travel will not stop; forms of travel will alter, and the cost of travel may increase relatively to other costs. The market will come to the aid of the traveller.

What’s the problem?

If it’s not global capitalism or the market, then what is the problem? For the Christian, it is easy to see. To coin a phrase, ‘It’s human nature, stupid’. It’s human nature to want things to sustain and protect and amuse us, and to make life easier. It’s human nature to want more than we can use, to be greedy. Consumption, either necessary or wasteful and extravagant, is the consequence of human nature. So, if in Pascalian fashion we wager on climate change being ‘anthropogenic’, how do we address the problem of human nature that is at the heart of the kinds and amounts of things people choose to consume?

It is obvious enough that there are plenty of ways of critiquing our modern world — the idea that happiness and human fulfilment are found in acquiring bits and pieces, that moral and other kinds of progress can come from technology. These are fair game. But criticising others and analysing ‘the problem’ does not motivate us. Such critique is no doubt necessary, and perhaps there is not enough of it, but it is essentially negative.

Pascal invited those who are inclined to wager to take action — there is a cost. For us there is a cost too. So let’s finally take a look at what we ought to do if we gamble on global warming. Here are some suggestions.

Personal

First, we can resolve that any response that we make is a personal response. There are general biblical principles that provide reasons for this approach. It takes moral responsibility seriously. It’s a more authentic expression of faith. The world is full of people offering blueprints, often in the name of Jesus Christ, but they are frequently exempted from the effects of those blueprints themselves. Remembering the mote and the beam, we must start with ourselves, not with pointing a finger at someone else.

Self-examination

Second, we may care to remind ourselves of certain things about our behaviour. We may often make bad judgments about what things will help us. Things that seem indispensable, a ‘must have’, turn out to be disappointing. Our lofts and yards are littered with the consequences of such judgments. Christians, as others, often deceive themselves about the true sources of well-being and fulfilment. We are greedy and can become addicted to food and drink and clothes — even addicted to the maintenance of our own health. We follow society by trying to satisfy ourselves with things that will pass. It’s human nature, fallen human nature. So, one personal thing that we can do is to review our own choices. This seems to be in line with the general approach of the New Testament, with its teaching on self-examination and the need to exercise personal judgment.

Sensible

Third, having reviewed these patterns of choice, we ought to take action and change our behaviour where we judge such change to be necessary. These courses of action are likely to be prudent in most circumstances. If there is such a thing as ‘anthropogenic global warming’ then, if we have gambled on it and taken personal action, we can be sure we are making some contribution to alleviating it, if anything at the individual human level can. And if it turns out that there is no global warming, or there is but it can’t be controlled, then these actions have still been sensible, Christian things to have done.

Non-judgmental

Fourth, we ought not to judge others. We should reject the temptation of making our own ways of coping with life a part of the gospel, the church’s message. How we handle our personal part in waging war on climate change is not an infallible prescription for others, much less an integral part of the gospel. The Christian gospel no more provides us with advice on the correct way to dispose of our household rubbish than it prescribes the correct way to grow shallots or to build a fence.

All this is easy, but it’s also difficult. Those who have children know the effects of peer-pressure. They want to be ‘cool’. For ourselves, we want ease and plenty. It is difficult to be content. Paul says that he had learned to be content, implying that it had not come easily to him, that he had to fight discontent.

We know that this world is not our home, so the idea of ‘saving the planet’, apart from the hubris that the phrase expresses, is also a somewhat paradoxical idea for the Christian. While our short-term future is on planet Earth, our long-term future is elsewhere, in a new heavens and earth in which righteousness dwells. But nevertheless, and in the meantime, we want to give our children a good start, and our parents a happy ending, and ourselves as comfortable a life as is consistent with what we profess.