It is an old trick of those power to try to steal the clothes of their critics and thus present themselves as the put upon underdog. This is why every conservative politician has to proclaim how much he or she hates government. So it should be no surprise that the neo-liberal power stucture has come out fighting against environmentalism in general and the theory of global warming in particular.
Here they are, having seen of not only socialism but Keynesiansim as well, ready to rule the world under the banner of ‘free markets’ when along comes the notion of global warming to spoil the show. Global warming is a problem because its root cause is the profligate use of fossil fuels that has provided the cheap power source for mass industrialisation across the globe.
And so they set up organisations and fund scientists to dispute the whole idea. They call it ‘junk science’ and point how many scientists are now making a living out of promoting the theory of global warming. They then contrast this self interest and bad science with the pure and selfless ideas of neo-liberal economic development.
Trouble is, this neo-liberal program of global transformation is based on theory that makes global warming look like rock hard science. The economic theory underneath neo-liberal ideology has NEVER been tested in the way climatologists, for instance, have to test their theories. And if you want to see a real industry of junketing and self promotion, look no further than the mega-business of neoliberal support for ‘market-led’ globalisation happening at a five star hotel near you.
There is nothing new in this rampant hypocrisy, but the problem remains that the overwhelming majority of relevant physical scientists argue that a phenomenon called global warming is underway. Maybe they know what they are talking about, and just maybe we should act on their warnings.
This does not mean abandoning economic growth, but is does mean being smarter about how we do it.
November 04, 2003 | Peter
The anti-greens
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Peter,
I don’t think that the serious issue is whether Greenhouse exists, but what, if anything, to do about it. When it comes to Greenhouse, I’m a believer, but when it comes to Kyoto, I’m atheistic. What’s the point of an agreement which doesn’t involve the Chinese or the Indians and which only delays, but does not prevent, the onset of Carbon-Dioxide Summer? And it’s an agreement that lets the Europeans off virtually scott-free. They get to keep the material benefits of having felled most of their forests, extirminated most of their wildlife, and putting in as much nuclear power as they are likely to need while the rest of us in the deveoped world have to wear hair shirts.
It seems to me that there is more than a little irrationality on both sides of the argument.
Comment by Graham Young — November 6, 2003 @ 4:08 pm
Yes it is true that the science used to promote the Greenhouse Effect is based on not just bad science but very bad science. We can argue about it all we like but it is not so long ago that we were told that global warming will lead to increased temperatures and more rain. Now we get told by Greens, Senator Brown that the drought here in Australia is also an effect of global warming. It seems that whatever extreme of climate presents itself it is an indication of man induced climate change.
THe sooner we have a real scientifically based debate on climate, free from the usual fascist like invective so favoured by the Greens the better we will all be.
Comment by Kingsley — November 7, 2003 @ 1:24 pm