The god of climate change

Back in August, eco-activists won the right to set up camp at Heathrow Airport for eight days in protest against the alleged damage done to the environment by the aviation industry.

Their aim? As well as highlighting the effect of aviation fuels on the environment, their goal was to discourage as many as would listen from using aeroplanes as a mode of transport and by so doing, curtail plans to further expand facilities at the airport.

This is just one of the many tactics used to dramatic effect by supporters of the climate change movement. Such flamboyant displays are guaranteed to grab national and even global headlines, and serve to ensure that it remains in our collective subconscious.

In current times this issue has become not unlike a mantra, chanted with unflinching devotion by an ever-growing section of society. It is fair to say that in many parts of the Western world in particular, people are increasingly bowing down at the altar of the god of climate change.

But like a number of other topics of the day – such as animal rights – one gets the feeling that this is more of a fad than anything else. There seem to be fewer discussions about it that are actually rational and unbiased, and everyone – young, old, politician, pop star and entrepreneur – jumps on the bandwagon for fear of not being seen to be ‘green’ enough.

So politicians, irrespective of their leanings, are making desperate moves in their bids to win the green vote. In the United Kingdom, the Labour government has taken steps such as doubling Air Passenger Duty (APD) in a bid to make travellers aware of the environmental consequences of air travel. Car drivers are another easy target, with regular news headlines warning of supplementary new taxes they will soon be required to pay for the privilege of driving vehicles they have bought with their own hard-earned money. Road tolls are in the works, and some local councils already go as far as penalising residents who do not recycle household waste.

The Conservative party, not wanting to be left in the shade, is promising to take its environmental policy one step further by proposing a halt to airport expansion, increasing taxes on short-haul flights, and capping energy use by domestic appliances, should they win the next general election. Even the Liberal Democrats are making a case, with their Environmental spokesman Chris Huhne calling for a ban on petrol powered cars to be in effect by 2040.

Now, you may think I am completely against attempts by the ‘greenies’ to force us to clean up our act. While I can hardly claim to be a convert to the green cause and confess to being fairly blase about the whole thing, I certainly would not advocate being reckless with our natural, God-given resources.

For instance, it is a well-known and documented fact that the supply of crude oil reserves is diminishing in relation to growing global demand, and this inverse proportion accounts for the average price of $75 – $80 a barrel today compared to $11 twenty years ago. So it makes sense, I think, to research new energy sources while investigating ways to use today’s oil as cleanly and efficiently as possible.

But when proponents of climate change take to pontificating and actively seeking to change people’s lifestyles by laying on the guilt for conducting activities such as flying to holiday destinations or driving their children to school, I think we may have gone too far.

Times have changed a lot over the past century. In that time man has invented motoring, air travel, electricity, telephony, computers, the worldwide web. These are just a handful of the major discoveries which make things more convenient for us as our lifestyles have gathered pace.

In terms of travel we have seen the world become a global village, and people are increasingly exploring terrain that would previously have been inaccessible to them.

That also means that vast numbers of people are mocing around, not just for leisure but also as economic migrants in search of better living conditions. In the United Kingdom alone, the number of recorded migrants in 2006 reached a staggering 574,000. Of these, the majority are purported to be from Eastern European and African countries. This means that people inevitably leave family and friends behind, and someone could have family members spanning as many as three or four continents…I certainly do!

If I was to imbibe the spirit of the ‘greenies’ and refrain from air travel, how would I get to see my parents? Since flying is not environmentally friendly, perhaps I should go by ship? After all, Africans were brought to these lands on slave ships many years ago and those voyages took weeks…months even. Perhaps a similar journey back would do to pacify the ‘greenies’? Or perhaps, it is not necessary to see my family at all?

What about going away on holiday? Having worked hard all year I wouldn’t have thought this would be too much to ask, or come to think about it, that I needed to ask at all. I guess you could argue that I could easily go somewhere local instead of making a transatlantic trip. And it’s true, I could. But surely that should be my choice, and it shouldn’t be anyone’s place – campaigner or politician – to thrust such a choice upon me?

Forcing people to adopt a certain lifestyle by levying taxes on their choices and penalising them for not being quite ‘green’ enough harks of hypocrisy, particularly when we claim to live in a society where people’s rights are valued and respected as long as those rights do not go against the rule of law. All it does is increase their apathy, and consequently they fail to see the actual merits in the argument. I certainly know that has been the effect of the moralising on me.

And I do not want to be lectured by those who take the moral high ground because they have chosen to live ‘green’ either.

I am not by any means advocating an explosion in consumerism: it only makes sense that there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the things which make us comfortable do not come back to haunt us by desecrating the very earth which sustains us.

But the issue needs to be approached with a bit more science and logic, and a little less of the emotive gesturing we have seen in recent years.

Above all, there should be an awakening to the fact that man was not made to serve his environment in quite the way we make out: the environment and natural resources are intended for our sustenance.