The Morality of Inaction of Global Warming

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is essentially a conservative organization because it is composed of country representatives with disparate interests with regard to climate change.  Nevertheless, they have just come out with a report describing inaction on greenhouse gases as immoral.  With inaction the consequences, they state, are irreversible and catastrophic.  What makes it immoral is that the costs of preventing this outcome is so very small relative to the consequences, a point I've made in a previous post

The Republicans have taken over control of the U.S. Senate.  This means Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma will be the new Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.  He has already stated that any action on global warming would be immoral:

His favorite Bible verse, Genesis 8:22 is: “As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” About that, he said to a radio interviewer at the Voice of Christian Youth America: "My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."


So now we have morality opposed to morality.  How is that going to be resolved?  Historically such dilemmas have been resolved by armed conflict, Protestants vs. Catholics in the 15th Century, for example.  I'm afraid the only resolution possible is an uprising of the people of the world against their reluctant leaders.  A real, concerted, angry, uprising.  And I don't see anything like that happening anytime soon.  Which means we should all expect very serious environmental and human consequences.

Popular posts from this blog

Four Degrees Celsius Would Be Catastrophic