Global Warming
As a general rule, this blog will not seek to address current issues, but instead will look to the framework of values and understandings that underly a liberal political philosophy. However I make an exception to talk about global warming.
I think the underlying value behind the global warming debate is quite simple: that we have an obligation to be stewards of the earth, not just for future generations but for all life on the planet. We have an obligation to preserve the existence and habitat of other species, whether they’re animal, plant, or other. This is a very serious and profound obligation that could be discussed in depth on its own. But to get straight to the point – we should be very reluctant to destroy what we are not capable of creating. We destroy God’s creation of manifold species at our moral and existential peril.
It is conceivable that in 50 years, our time will be looked at nostalgically as the time when we could have made a difference, when we could have prevented global warming. Scholars will debate why we dithered. The problem of terrorism distracted American society from the looming threat. An ex-oilman as President took every opportunity to delay addressing an issue that would have placed him in opposition to his beloved coterie. Or perhaps simply the problem was that the American people were much better at addressing realized threats than potential ones.
I have a feeling that those who demur concern for global warming have an essential failure of imagination. They cannot imagine a planet sucked dry of life. They cannot imagine glaciers melted, coastlines swamped, climates changed, species extinct. The pine forest in your backyard becomes a desert. Wheatfields in Iowa become subtropical jungle. The very complexion and character of our beloved Earth, forever altered in the name of temporary convenience.
The values in the debate are clear. The only thing the other side of the debate (‘Let’s keep our fingers crossed…’) has going for it is delay and denial. Unfortunately, that may be all they need to win, and so lose the great inheritance of us all.
I think the underlying value behind the global warming debate is quite simple: that we have an obligation to be stewards of the earth, not just for future generations but for all life on the planet. We have an obligation to preserve the existence and habitat of other species, whether they’re animal, plant, or other. This is a very serious and profound obligation that could be discussed in depth on its own. But to get straight to the point – we should be very reluctant to destroy what we are not capable of creating. We destroy God’s creation of manifold species at our moral and existential peril.
It is conceivable that in 50 years, our time will be looked at nostalgically as the time when we could have made a difference, when we could have prevented global warming. Scholars will debate why we dithered. The problem of terrorism distracted American society from the looming threat. An ex-oilman as President took every opportunity to delay addressing an issue that would have placed him in opposition to his beloved coterie. Or perhaps simply the problem was that the American people were much better at addressing realized threats than potential ones.
I have a feeling that those who demur concern for global warming have an essential failure of imagination. They cannot imagine a planet sucked dry of life. They cannot imagine glaciers melted, coastlines swamped, climates changed, species extinct. The pine forest in your backyard becomes a desert. Wheatfields in Iowa become subtropical jungle. The very complexion and character of our beloved Earth, forever altered in the name of temporary convenience.
The values in the debate are clear. The only thing the other side of the debate (‘Let’s keep our fingers crossed…’) has going for it is delay and denial. Unfortunately, that may be all they need to win, and so lose the great inheritance of us all.
Comments