“Science never stood a chance”, skriver Emma Hartley i The Telegraph. Hon talar förstås om klimathotet. Frågan som genomsyrar hela vårt samhälle och som i princip ingen står oberörd inför. Global uppvärmning har något för alla. Det är till och med bättre än ett Kinderägg.
“The Left likes it because it emphasises that we all have the planet in common; conservatives because it seeks a return to an earlier “norm”; authoritarians because it argues an over-riding imperative; liberals because lifestyle changes are demanded at an individual level.
It appeals to the religious because it requires adherence to a doctrine; older people because the implied frugality of the solution takes them back to rationing; the young because they don’t know anything else and because Disney and the rest of mainstream children’s culture uses the natural world as a metaphor for everything; teenagers because it proves their moral superiority to their parents; the rest of the population because it implies an adult preoccupation with the wider context of things.
It suits arts graduates because it shows how science has failed us; it intrigues scientists because the solution must be technological; the brave like it because it’s a challenge to which a solution must be found and the cowardly because it proves there is always something huge out to get us, beyond our contrivance and fixing.
Americans like it because it suggests that their preoccupations – cars, technology, fast food – matter; and it confirms to the rest of the world what we knew all along: everything bad is America’s fault.
The kind like green politics because the solution is “kindness to the environment”; the cruel because it suggests nature’s lack of pity. The rich like it because it’s a fashionable cause and the poor because poverty leaves a smaller carbon footprint.
Germans like it because it embodies our guilt for what is already done – and implicates everyone else. Consumers because you can buy green stuff; ascetics because the less you buy the greener you are.
Oudoorsy people embrace green politics because it will improve the view; indoorsy people because it confirms that the outdoors is a dangerous and threatening place.”
Och slutligen ställer hon den stora frågan:
“But I ask you, what are the chances that a doctrine so psychologically convenient for so many people is, on balance, correct?”