It is a perennially challenging question: how much of our belief about God and His truth is revelation and how much is actually a projection of the best (hopefully) that humans can imagine?  Undoubtedly the Scriptures contain the wisdom to deal with the unprecedented (pace Noah) dangers of global warming, and the answer seems to be more about establishing right relationships with people, especially poor people, and other creatures, than with changing technologies.

 

Professor Northcott, in ‘A Moral Climate’, based climate change ethics on the sovereignty of God rather than the reasoning of modern applied philosophy (p164).  It is therefore revealing and perhaps comforting to discover that Dr Garvey, as Secretary of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, unashamedly reaches very similar conclusions about values and required actions.  (However, he has contributed several times to the Faith Column in the New Statesman.)

 

I hope that Christians will find time to read this lucid and concise book because (inadequate) Christian thinking lies behind many of the attitudes that got us into this mess and God probably does not limit guidance to the pious.  We need the humility to listen to disciplined philosophy as well as to peer-reviewed science.  To the religious mind, prophets do tend to be unlikely sorts of people!

 

The author has a lightness of touch that can be disarming, and a wry sense of humour that leads our moral outrage on, in a manner that would not disgrace Nathan, until we are shocked into recognising ourselves. 

 

After an overview of the current science and the disturbing prognosis, Garvey establishes the need for reasoned justification for moral beliefs if life is to be meaningful.  There may, or may not, be foundational justifications, but consistency is crucial and essentially (whether one invokes, say, utilitarianism or Kant’s categorical imperative [universalisability of maxims] – page 48) this means that everyone’s pain and pleasure matters equally.  This leads to the recent development of environmental ethics.  Environmental ethics attempts to get beyond the instrumental value of nature to humanity – maybe only new ways of thinking can get us out of this danger.

 

There follows an analysis of responsibility, with the inevitable uncomfortable conclusions if the principle of consistency is applied.  Difficult questions remain.  If the only way to get the developed nations on board with a global action plan was to forgive their past contribution to present greenhouse gas levels, would it be morally right to do so?  Will climate adversity mean that finally we recognise our common humanity?  Even if we despair of politicians and companies, will ‘the rest of us’ do the right thing?  And, if it is human nature eventually to do the right thing, will it be in time?  

 

To which I would add:  if the Christians who constitute the (Western) Church fail to take a lead in doing the right thing, however costly, will we forfeit the privilege ever again to proclaim a message from God?  (Assuming there’s anyone left to hear.)

Charles Jolly