The Limits of Earth Worship
David Cox, writing for the Guardian, discusses the “religion” of environmentalism and the limits of such a faith.
“…environmental sanctity clearly provides harmless succor to those in need of it. Moreover, surely, it might save the human race from extinction. Here, however, is the rub. The religion that global warming has spawned has become an obstacle to the cause it appears to enshrine. The trouble with religions is that their adherents’ prime concern tends to be securing their own position among the elect. Often they feel that pursuing personal salvation by faith and works is all that is required. Thus, our new environmentalist congregation is happy to chant dogma, make (some) sacrifices in its name and denounce 4×4 drivers and long-haul travelers. Unfortunately, this will not be enough to defeat global warming.”
In Cox’s view, no amount of small-scale personal sacrifice can effect the changes that are needed to avoid major environmental catastrophe. Only rigorous political action to sway the world’s governments hold any hope of real change (a view held by some environmental activists as well).
“At present, these governments have yet to rise to this challenge on anything like a sufficient scale. It may be that they never will. However, if they are to be prodded into taking the necessary measures, more will be required than the piety of a sanctimonious few. It will take relentless political action. Sadly, politics enjoys none of the charisma that once more attends religion…Earth worship may make the worshipers feel better. The Earth, however, needs something more.”
While I don’t appreciate Cox’s smug superior tone (and a lack of suggestions on how to enact that “something more”), he does make a good point that needs to be discussed, especially amongst those of us who follow some permutation of “Nature Religion”. Personal lifestyle changes, while admirable (and needed), can’t replace political action. But what kind of political action? Taking to the streets? Funneling money to lobbyists?
Now that scientific consensus is a close to unanimous as anything gets nowadays, we need leaders and governments who will take on the problem of global warming as a top priority. Any candidate (from any party) who runs for president in 2008 needs to have a robust plan regarding climate change if they want to be taken seriously as a world leader. As awareness and a desire to stem the tide of global warming start to spread (especially in the face of more Katrina-esque disasters) those of us who claim (in some fashion) to have a spiritual connection with the earth need to step forward and become the moral voice for environmental responsibility we have been claiming to be since 1970, and help guide the secular political actions that are to come.
No responses yet
