Financial Times Publishes The "Anti-Green" Position

I'm not as green as all that and I do love a clever bit of Devil's advocacy, but truth be told, I'm not sure what the hell he was babbling about, really...

"if we were really serious about reducing carbon emissions we could do so by large amounts without significantly affecting our economies or our lives."

Does he expand on this? If I could pass a law and forget about the whole "environment" thing, do you think I'd read a blog like this? I wonder what he thinks "really serious" is? Industrial control? National Park expansion? Stricter auto regulations? Switching our infrastructure over to wind hydro and solar? I'm down, I don't know what he means "they're not interested." Maybe I just haven't seen that golden bullet panacea yet.

"The injunction to be careful of the impact of our actions on the air, the earth and the water is well taken."

Well at least he got that bit.

"The danger of environmental evangelism is that ritual, gesture and rhetoric take the place of substance."

This could also describe a lot of the corporate greenwashing that is on the rise.

I think we should always welcome the 'anti-green' view as it helps us reflect on and refine what really is the truth. There may be some truth in his parallel between the myths of religion and some of the current warnings of apopcalypse. Unfortunately the SCIENTIFIC consensus seems to be that yes, things are that bad, and unfortunately nature's deadlines aren't necessarily going to wait around and see what humans think.

You can't really see it, but I'm rolling my eyes at him.

They are even less interested in evidence that if we were really serious about reducing carbon emissions we could do so by large amounts without significantly affecting our economies or our lives.

Perhaps now he will attack businesses which actually DO have religion in their mission statements. Apache and Covenant Transport come to mind.

You might start flaming but I actually second his opinion although I try to live a green life (cycling to work, energy saving lighting, no airconditioning etc etc). I consider the article well written and very interesting.

Greetings!

He has a lot of good points. The only one I would argue with is his thought that global warming is perhaps not caused by human made CO2. The evidence is really quite firm for this.

Windmills and bicycling to work really are like spitting on a forest fire. Yes they 'do good' but no, they will really never actually get anything done.

A Carbon tax would actually do the job, is simple, and every company, person and building would, through the power of the economy, actually improve things.

I agree with him. This whole environmental thing is 90% new religion. People would be aghast if they found out how much of their recycling ends up in landfill. The environmental movement is mostly about feeling good about yourself as you seperate for your recycling, write letters opposing landfills, etc etc. Wind power just sounds soooo good. Yet if looked at from the point of view of lowering the amount of carbon dumped into the air, they essentially do nothing. Environmentalists don't care about the actual sums, just the looks.

Here are two articles by the economist:

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=987805

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=7884738

It is perfectly acceptable to object to the ideology of a movement, at least for liberals, because that's the essence of freedom. However, conservatives do not permit the fundamental tenets of their positions to be questioned, and refuse to be attacked when their ideas have bad consequences.

When the goose is cooked, the gander should be too !

A similar charge of 'religious belief' could be leveled at much of economics. Want to talk about a field clogged with 'rituals of observance'?

To speak of the state of 'our economies or our (consumer) lives' as sacrosanct is ridiculuous, and assumes that these are on their best track now. One example of how this is not the case is the distortions and manipulations of advertising, which is designed to sell products that consumers don't need, while minimizing awareness of the (non-monetary) costs involved in purchases.

'Windmills on roofs' and 'cycling to work' are two ways individuals can start to make a difference in their own lives. Just because big business hasn't signed on yet doesn't de-legitimize the effort. Address of environmental issues isn't an either-or proposition.

The parallel with religion is interesting. (Didn't Chrichton say something like this in State of Fear? I heard about it, but did not read it.) Certainly treehuggers feel it is morally right to re-use and/or recycle.

Where the metaphor falls flat is when you consider the scientific evidence which supports the environmental movement. Saying that if you reduce C02 emissions you will reduce the impact of global warming, is very different from saying that if you put your faith in Jesus (or another) you will be saved in the after life.

Where the metaphor works, is that most religions have certain guidelines for living well, which are intended to help everyone exist together happily. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not waste gasoline. That the rules environmentalists live by, intended to help us survive and share the resources of the world, should resemble a religious moral code is not really a surprise.

The bike thing: Actually riding a bike does have an impact, but one could argue there are more powerful actions to take. It is usually more effective to try to change the policies of large institutions than the actions of an individual, but that doesn't mean you should not do the right thing in your own life.

Thought provoking article.

"Every ideology needs rituals of observance which demonstrate the commitment of adherents."

I do often feel like I'm being looked down on by my green brethren because although I recycle, compost, drive small cars, and have reduced my electricity use; I do not bike to work, don't buy organic, haven't set my thermostat to 60 in winter, and don't live "off the grid."

One thing I would quibble with oo knobstruner's comments - "The only one I would argue with is his thought that global warming is perhaps not caused by human made CO2. The evidence is really quite firm for this." We should always be questioning what we KNOW and leave open the possibility that we are wrong. It sure would be a shame wasting all this effort reducing CO2 only to find out later we should have dealing with a different catalyst. I for one am not yet convinced which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. I don't believe we can afford to wait for conclusive evidence, but we should keep scrutinizing our firm evidence WITH AN OPEN MIND.

I'll pray for him.

I will pray for him.

The Netherlands became a world power with windmills and sailboats, and there are still a hundred (or even a thousand) times more bicycles than cars in China.

Thought provoking article.

"Every ideology needs rituals of observance which demonstrate the commitment of adherents."

I do often feel like I'm being looked down on by my green brethren because although I recycle, compost, drive small cars, and have reduced my electricity use; I do not bike to work, don't buy organic, haven't set my thermostat to 60 in winter, and don't live "off the grid."

One thing I would quibble with of knobstruner's comments - "The only one I would argue with is his thought that global warming is perhaps not caused by human made CO2. The evidence is really quite firm for this." We should always be questioning what we KNOW and leave open the possibility that we are wrong. It sure would be a shame wasting all this effort reducing CO2 only to find out later we should have dealing with a different catalyst. I for one am not yet convinced which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. I don't believe we can afford to wait for conclusive evidence, but we should keep scrutinizing our firm evidence WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Who does he think "business leaders" are? I'm sure many of the successful businesses that advertise here could give a different point of view. Wait, maybe he belongs to a cult called "The Business Leaders" that doesn't actually breath the air on planet earth.

"A similar charge of 'religious belief' could be leveled at much of economics".

Including Stern, if we're seeking to be even handed, yet his report appears to been taken as absolute gospel in certain fairly influential quarters, which justifies some of the opinion in the original article if you ask me. Not saying I agree with it all, but I can see validity in some of the issues raised.

One person riding a bike will not make a difference.

One billion people in china switching from bikes to cars is already making a big difference.

...And one billion people riding their bikes to work and leaving their cars at home can also make a difference. When will the cynics realize that many people are making changes that they too benefit from. Help those sorry whiners to get up on their bikes and join the party.

Industry and economics are boring undertakings, which explains why they are populated by people with no imagination. The most intelligent people in our society tend to go into fields with a higher quality of life, like teaching, law, or media.

As a result, our business sector suffers from bad second- and third-class thinking. If Roone Arledge, David Ogilvy or Fred Friendly ran General Motors, cars would get 100 miles per gallon and would still be fun to drive, and we wouldn't be having these conversations.

Ah, the dismal science of economics rears its head again. Can we take seriously a discipline that treats clean air, clean water and biodiversity as 'externalities' with no monetary value.
Maybe this guy is just put out that environmentalists refuse to bow the knee at the altar of the free market like he does.

Individuals can make a difference, especially if they mobilise others. Just ask Shell about the Brent Spar incident. We have enormous power for good through our behaviour, values and the way we direct or withdraw our consumption. The words of one economist aren't going to change the groundswell of change towards a more sustainable society.

Rob, I'll assume by that comment that you are not a teacher, a lawyer or a journalist.

(I admit to not having been a journalist, and lawyering wasn't always fun. However, all three occupations are a helluva lot more stimulating than kow-towing to some frat twit who looks good in a suit.)

John Kay's article is crass and naive to an extreme that you only really see in hard-line ideologues.

It's absolutely correct to criticise any social or political movement, but equating the Green movement to religion just doesn't hold water. Environmentalism is a reasoned, intelligent response based on decades of research and a growing understanding of the world around us.

Comparing Marxism to religion is a much fairer comparison. And here I suspect is Kay's key (!): he's trying to tar the environmental movement with that of olde worlde socialism. Kay's hard-line attitude is just about preaching to the converted (the readership of the FT) and justifying their unjustifiable position by wrapping it up in pseudo-psychological and pseudo-scientific language.

As heyandy suggests above, the crowning irony is that while Environmentalism is based on fact, the economics that Kay propounds is ideologically driven and much closer to a religion than the Green movement could ever be.

Does he not serve a god - Mammon?

It's absolutely correct to criticise any social or political movement, but equating the Green movement to religion just doesn't hold water. Environmentalism is a reasoned, intelligent response based on decades of research and a growing understanding of the world around us.

The comparison of the environmental movement, as it currently exists (as opposed to environmentalism per se), to a religion is a valid one.

However, I think it would be more accurate to describe it as a pseudo religion such as The Church of Scientology. The prime example of this is the prevailing fawning admiration of a certain failed demagogue politician, standing in for the role of failed demagogue science fiction writer and Scientologist founder, L. Ron Hubbard.

Where the Scientologists use a "free personality test" to recruit adherents, so the ideological environmentalists have their own version, in the form of a quiz to calculate your "environmental impact". In both cases, it is virtually guaranteed you will be found wanting. Predictably, they both offer salvation for your numerous "sins".

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/

Followers of Scientology are required to pay thousands of dollars for "auditing" and instructional courses, if they wish to attain salvation. The goal is that after they spend enough money, they will be qualified to "audit" other Scientologists. Acolytes of Al Gore are lucky in that their training is free of charge, and presumably they get their money's worth. Aspiring enviro-Jesuits are taught to -- and I'm not making this up -- "Learn How to Deliver the Truth".

http://www.climatecrisis.net/blog/?p=30

I'd recommend you avoid drinking the Koolaid, however.

It could be argued that ideological environmentalists have achieved greater market penetration than Scientologists managed. But it would be hard to say which philosophy is more intolerant and eager to supress legitimate criticism and refutation of their respective claims to The Truth. Certainly the Scientologists are the reigning masters of demagoguery, but ideological environmentalists are quickly narrowing the gap. Just try presenting objective facts which contradict their ideology, and see how quickly you are answered with ad hominem attacks and accusations of "climate skepticism" -- as though unquestioning, blind faith is a superior creed.

"Comparing Marxism to religion is a much fairer comparison."

I agree with this, because a large part of regulation and conservation is preserving limited resources. A free market type would probably resent the idea that the wealthiest people and nations should share resources they "earned" with the poor.

I'm not an economist myself, but it seems that free market ideals are based on darwinian survival of the fittest. In that sense, he is correct to say that morals, whether environmental or not, have no place in business. Business, in a pure free market based economy, is an amoral sphere. Where the irony comes in for me, is that these same businesses and individuals ask for a free pass from morality when they conduct business, yet expect to benefit from all of the social norms and laws of the civilized societies in which they exist (which are ruled by morals and laws rather than the law of the jungle).

I think a truly global economy, one which fosters growth and innovation, requires a greater adherence to the "social contract" than most economists are willing to admit.
=== author's response follows ====
Thanks for the well written comment.

Update: Financial Times edition of 11 January 2006 has just published 5 letters to the editor regarding the Kay essay. All argued that "environmentalism" was more empirical than religious in approach.

This guy is a bit on the fanatic side of the outdated 19th century's businness; if he was a real leading expert he'd know better where the real economics are and wouldnt make this confusion between goals and instruments, just a quick example:
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2194.html

As far as I can see, John Kay won that debate. He's right on, the Green movement is exactly that, a movement. Like a bowel movement after too much tofu. Really lads, where's the debate? Where's the real proof that ANY climate change is man-induced? It's something I've suspected for a long time since both socialism and communism failed, the anti-capitalists have needed a new vehicle to beat their drum. Along comes a few sandal-wearing, prophet-like figures and hey presto!!! The Greens are born!! Progress won't end and neither will the Earth. Mother Earth's been here eleventy billion years, humans have been here about 40,000 years. Do us all a favour and get out of the way of progress. All leftist conspiracies eventually fail and so will yours.