Global Warming and Environmentalism

Freeman Dyson has a very interesting review in The New York Review of Books of two recent books on global warming that should be read and discussed by folks concerned about the future. Dyson also makes a further interesting distinction on the relationship between religion and science in discussions of global warming and environmentalism:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

One thing I took away from the review, especially of the book A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies by William Nordhaus, was that doing nothing isn't the worst possible choice for future generations, nor is it necessarily the best. The other thing I took away from the review was further confirmation that the current misguided emphasis on converting corn to ethanol isn't helping the environment (or reducing carbons) but is definitely hurting poor people all over the world by driving up the costs of food. But this isn't necessarily the only "solution" that may be making the problem worse instead of better.