Environmentalism: A Godless Religion

Global temperatures are rising. Carbon emissions from human activity are rising. The seemingly obvious and inescapable conclusion is that human activity is causing global warming. The rational approach engendered by environmentalism is the best and only way forward, or is it?

There are two problems in this assumption, the first is the evidence doesn't actually support the theory (and let's not forget it is just a theory) and secondly it provides a method to circumvent a far greater issue that governments and global business do not want to tackle. The human disaster that lies behind the political, economic and social expediency is being obscured and is potentially damning us to a future that is beyond any of the horrors global warming could bring.

Let's take a moment to discuss the science behind the theory and it will not take longer than a moment to highlight the potential problems. Without reference to any particular data set, it is still relatively easy to see when you look at a graph of global temperatures plotted against carbon dioxide emissions there is a significant flaw. The information simply doesn't fit the theory. For a period of nearly thirty-five years the data ran counter to the theory carbon emissions are causing global warming. Between nineteen forty and nineteen seventy-five when carbon dioxide emission were well into their aggressive upward turn, global temperatures actually went down. This has been explained through yet another theory that claims pollution in the atmosphere at the time had a mitigating effect, which on the face of it seems to be plausible enough. However, a closer inspection of the data does in fact suggest another correlation but not one you might expect. Longer-term the data, which includes data taken from ice core samples, seems to suggest that global warming causes increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and not the other way around. To take a balanced approach this does not constitute incontrovertible evidence that global warming is necessarily an incorrect assumption; the point is simply that it shows there is no incontrovertible evidence either way. So why is it we are seeing such a fervent campaign from the environmental lobby and almost nothing from anyone else? The answer to this is far less obvious and takes us into the realms of psychology and politics.

The beginnings of this intriguing trail lie in British politics of the late nineteen seventies. The Conservative government (a moderate right-wing government) under the leadership of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was embroiled in a long battle with the trade unions. Thatcher was intent on breaking the power base of the unions and had focused her attentions on the coal mining industry and a particularly powerful union led by a man called Arthur Scargill, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), who were striking in a stand against proposed mine closures. In order to garner political and ultimately public support for the idea of nuclear power replacing fossil fuel power (namely coal) Thatcher presented a set of arguments based on research that highlighted a causal link between the burning of fossil fuels, with their inherent carbon emissions, and global warming. The purpose of this was to shift the weight of opinion to the government and away from the NUM. It was highly successful, Thatcher won the day and the union was broken. The striking miners went back to work and waited for the closures to take effect. Environmentalism had entered the world of politics on the back of climate change.

The politicisation of environmentalism had a profound effect and the following decade was to see a paradigm shift transforming it from a scientific theory to a full-blown ideology with political, social and ultimately economic implications. It moved through the political waters rapidly from fringe to mainstream politics with breathtaking speed. Unlike most political ideologies it didn't lend itself to left or right political leanings, it drove right down the middle bypassing the normal rationality checks ideologies should be subject to through argument and counter argument. The manner in which the general public took to it bears a striking resemblance to another type of ideology: religion.

Religion tells us we either believe in God and follow his laws or we are damned, it gives us no alternative, environmentalism offers us the same imperative, believe and behave or be damned, only the environmental version of Armageddon is much more tangible, or so it would seem. On a basic level society needs two things from its systems of belief, hope that tomorrow will be better and censorship to tell us what is acceptable and what is not. Fundamental to these requirements is the belief we are able to personally control the transformation of hope into a better tomorrow through our decision to follow the rules generated by censorship, despite the fact once we have committed to a system of belief the imperative presented to us leaves us no real choice. The interplay between hope and censorship is a symbiotic relationship that lies at the heart of any system of belief and can be found at the heart of environmentalism. This is dangerous for a number of reasons, mainly because it defies rationalisation.

As is the case with religion there exists an argument that environmentalism causes no harm and must be a 'good' especially in the event it proves to be right. In the case of environmentalism this argument is both fatuous and wrong and stands less scrutiny than if it were made on behalf of religion. Environmentalism deals with the symptoms of human existence and not the causes. Humans, like many other animals, have become experts in manipulating their resources in order to survive. There is nothing unnatural about the use of fossil fuels, manufacture of plastics or even radioactive waste; these are all products or by-products of an exceptionally inventive species. We have used our intelligence to develop tools and adapt our surroundings to best suit our needs, there is nothing unnatural or, by any religious standards, unholy in this ability. We are not the first species to cause devastation to our immediate environment, many species have adapted themselves and other species into extinction and many more will. The problem lies in the scale of the apparent impact humans are having. The solutions proposed by environmentalism are only temporary fixes, even if we succeed and reduce carbon emissions to zero or prevent over-fishing of the seas etc. we are doomed to failure due to the sheer number of humans living on the planet. Even with minimal environmental impact the Earth has limited resources and we are rapidly approaching population numbers the Earth cannot support.

One pessimistic estimate has the population of humans reaching nine billion as early as 2050, and there are simply not enough resources on the planet to support that number of humans. There will be no need to be concerned with issues such as carbon emissions, resource management or waste reduction. Within our lifetime, or certainly within the lifetime of our children, the human population will become unsupportable. The consequences of this are far more frightening than anything an environmental disaster has to offer. The scale of not just human suffering but the suffering of all species who have to share a planet with us is unimaginable and yet environmentalism proposes not only preserving but perpetuating conditions optimal for human existence. So why is it so popular?

The reason for environmentalism becoming so popular is simple; it places humans in a central role with regard to the upkeep of the planet. It creates the delusion we are the masters of our own destiny and feeds directly into the primary needs we have from a system of belief. It is the worst kind of religion, it pretends to offer hope when it obscures the reality that it is not dealing with the root cause of the problem and may very well be making it worse. Politically the truth behind environmentalism is untouchable, it is an anathema to people to even consider population control of any kind. Economically global business has no interest in reducing its future market. Socially we would consider it an affront to our basic fundamental freedoms. Politicians, businesses and social groups have no interest in funding anti-environmental projects. We are trapped by anthropocentrism and no one has any interest in the reality that lies behind the delusion.

Environmentalism has cleverly placed itself in what seems to be an unassailable position in the public mind and is beginning to be the real threat to our continued existence by masking the root problem. If we survive, future generations will look back at environmentalism in the same way we look back on pre-Copernican ideas that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, with amusement and incredulity. We take heliocentrism for granted now but there was a time when it would have been religious heresy in much the same way anything other than environmentalism is political, economic and social heresy to us now. The modern trend towards environmentalism is nothing more than a crusade that puts humans at the centre of life on Earth. What is more worrying is the inflexible, unthinking 'faith' used to defend it, history has taught us only too well where that leads. It is not an attractive alternative and the very idea of population control is almost incomprehensible to us but it is a much more logical approach to the problem that would not only yield the same result but would last longer and save colossal sums of money. It would be far better for us to control population now than let the human race slide into pandemic issues, starvation issues or worse. Environmentalism is a Godless religion that masks the truth, but then facing up to truth is not something the human race is very good at.