Long hot showers of the soul

I thought that the global warming debate had reached a point where the fact of its happening was no longer in question, and the discussion from now on would be on how best to combat and cope with the threat.

Then Channel 4 broadcast a programme saying it was all a liberal conspiracy, and for a while the debate seemed to move backward again. Thankfully it seems that the programme has been widely recognised as a PR exercise in selective editing of selected evidence.

But an interesting idea that emerged in the debate surrounding the program was that liberals or environmentalists might invent a global climate threat. Or that they would have some agenda which would cause them to tend to distort the data towards an overly-alarmist viewpoint. When those with a vested interest in humanity's ongoing and increasing consumption of goods hold the view that global warming is not happening, or is not the result of human activity, it is only sensible to question their neutrality, whichever viewpoint one holds oneself. But, as Marcus Brigstocke said on Radio 4's The Now Show, liberals would invent a climate change fantasy in order to benefit themselves... how?!?!

I grew up with hose-pipe bans being the norm. Washing your car with a hose on your front drive in summer in British suburbia is morally akin to beating your children there. Your bright green front lawn shouts "I am evil!" Showering three times a day doesn't make you a Nice Clean Person: on the contrary, it makes you a Naughty Wasteful Person. The logic is as follows: The UK is experiencing drier and drier summers, and water is scarce. We ought to share what little we have around fairly. Basic ethics.

Or so I thought. Until I came here. Colombia has abundant natural resources -- whether it's flowers, fruit, coffee or coke that you want, Colombia's absurd fertility makes this country a leading producer of all four. There is no lack of water here. So therefore... there's no moral case against overusing water, right? I couldn't quite accept it. People using hosepipes to clean their front steps every day still seemed wrong. It still felt wrong to wash up under a running tap.

Now it is possible that I'm mistaken and there is a valid argument for not using too much water here either. But that isn't really what interested me. What I found interesting was that my feeling of doing wrong wasn't in fact as straightforwardly logical as I thought. It seemed to be based more on a sort of over-arching philosophy of life: that one should use only as little resources as one can, that one should leave the planet as much in the state that one found it as possible. Perhaps, even, that lots of long hot showers should be avoided simply because they are enjoyable! :o In short, that despite my logical arguments, in fact a kind of Puritan ethics drove my behaviour, not just a straighforward consideration for others.

And I realised that perhaps this is what those who claim that global warming is not in fact a result of human action, that cutting back on our consumptive activities will not help anything, were talking about. Facts are something that can be debated, and, hopefully, a consensus reached, based on evidence. Moral arguments, although subjective, are also universal. They can be presented in the global debate in clear terms: is it right, for instance, that the few who live in luxury should deny the millions living in gruelling poverty the means to build their way out of that poverty? I don't think there are many who would claim that it is. But once we get down into philosophy, the debate loses all universality. Is the path to true happiness through self-denial, frugality, and self-discipline? Or is it through comfort, pleasure and leisure? There are no answers to these questions. Philosophers have debated them for millenia. Religions have their opinions: modern consumer culture has another.

I think we might do well to be very careful in excluding ideology from the climate change debate, and concentrate solely on facts and morality. If it could be demonstrated that the flights of gap-year students going to build bridges in Ouagadougo do more environmental damage than the cars of those who drive to Bluewater every Sunday on shopping sprees, then we should agree to regulating the former rather than the latter. Even if I would personally prefer people to be building bridges than going shopping :).