Global Warming

Global warming is real, is partly caused by human activity, is problematic and must be confronted. But I am not alarmed: I consider a catastrophe less than probable. I am not a "denier"; but am I in some degree of denial? Possibly so. For many reasons.

First, I am an expert practitioner of avoidance. I normally have more problems and loose ends in my life than I can handle; so I ignore most (putting them "on the back burner") and focus calmly on the very most important. My wife will assure you: I can ignore a leaky roof, a faulty appliance, or "fix engine light" more completely and persistently than any man alive. This is NOT a strength, it is coping mechanism that helps me deal with life with my limitations. I practice this especially on the global problems I cannot effect: I try not to think about persecutions and abortions in Communist China; about female castration in Africa or honor killings of girls in Islamic cultures; about life in North Korea; or about how to handle Syria or Iran.

Secondly, I am 72 and global warming, even in the worst scenario, will hardly affect my life. Soon I will retire to the Jersey Shore, blocks from the ocean, and expect to live and die serenely in that area. But in fairness to myself, I do care about the world my grandchildren are inheriting; I am not entirely oblivious or polyannish.

Thirdly, I am tempermentally, philosophically and religiously adverse to negativity in all its forms: anxiety, hysteria, indignation, resentment, self-righteousness, self-pity and the victim complex. And so, my liberal views on issues like guns, immigration and climate are often overwhelmed by my emotive disgust with the shrill, arrogant and condescending tone of the crusaders.

Nevertheless, a positive, hopeful viewpoint is not necessarily illusory: serenity and confidence can enhance a realistic, accurate appraisal. Let me give reasons for my hope. (Small h hope: we will teat capital H Hope at the end.)

1.  There are a lot of uncertainties: How much is man- (I am so sorry! I mean) person-made? How severe will the consequences be?  How much of the information we receive is less sober analysis than hysteria-driven propaganda (see Al Gore's pompous, unbalanced movie!) Are there no positive consequences? Wouldn't it be nice to grow palm trees in Belmar NJ? Given our impressive scientific, technological capacities, can't we make the best of higher temperatures?

2.  What are the trade-offs, and are they worth it, especially for the poor? Climate anxiety, it seems to me, is in part an indulgence and hobby of the privileged, educated and affluent. The poor are struggling to survive and could care less. Many of the costs of climate control will be foisted on them by the elite managers. Even for the middle class, do we want to give up cars, meat, and warm houses?

3.  Experience has led me to be skeptical of all futurology. All the accepted predictions are contradicted by subsequent events. Case one: In the 1960s it was the population bomb: demographical trends predicted mass starvation and fierce wars for resources. The exact opposite happened: across the globe there is a demographic freeze and many nations (Russia, Japan, Europe) are in crisis because people are NOT having babies. BTW, it was partially this population hysteria (along with WASP elite eugenic  distaste for the overpopulating Catholics and blacks as well as the crusade for liberation of sex from its meaning and consequence) that fueled the idolization of contraception that is now the heart and soul of Western civilization. Case 2: In the 1970s I recall reading that emerging technology would reduce the need for human labor and that we needed to prepare for 15 to 20 hour work weeks by a culture of leisure. Looking back now, Americans work many more hours than they did in 1970. Case 3: In 1989 the fall of Communist Russia was seen as the final triumph of liberal, democratic capitalism. Just 30 years later, this system is under attack across the world, not least by Trumpism! So, my suspicious view is: when the experts predict a certainty, expect the opposite. I for one will not be surprised when the Tuesday NY Times Science section reports a new trend: global freezing!

4.  Lastly, but most significantly, global warming anxiety is mostly an affliction of the secular and faithless. If you believe this world is transitory, a preparation for and journey to a greater, everlasting life, you are less prone to anxiety. If you believe a powerful, loving God is somehow providentially overseeing this whole mess, you will find serenity. If you fear sin more than death, your concerns will take a different shape.  This does not make you indifferent. But things are gestalted differently for one who loves God above all. Of course, a believer receives Creation from its Giver in a stance of gratitude, humility, reverence and responsibility. Catholic, specifically papal, teaching is clear on this. But generally the tone of the climate crusade is not one of such trust and piety. It has little sense of CREATION and CREATURE  and CREATOR. But that is a theological topic for another essay.