Naomi Klein and “This Changes Everything”

Stephanie Merritt, who reviews books for The Guardian, has called This Changes Everything the ‘most important book I’ve read all year’.[1] In it, Naomi Klein demands that we collectively take more responsibility for climate change that is ongoing and threatens to destroy everything that we know, as the rather macabre title implies. She regrets how ‘each supercharged natural disaster produces new irony laden snapshots of a climate increasingly inhospitable to the very industries most responsible for it’s warming’.[2] For a historical perspective, however, what is interesting is that Klein seems consistently driven to refer to the past in order to construct her argument for the future.

For one, the title of the extract of her book recently published in The Guardian includes ‘Marshall Plan’ in its title. It is only by using the example of post second war levels of danger than Klein can communicate how powerful, climate change is. Why does the general public not respond unless they are given these harsh terms, and does this approach even work? Further, it does seem Klein uses the term without any historical context, but it nevertheless implicitly strengthens her argument. In an interview, Klein states change can ‘only happen through a convergence of existing movements’, and clearly she draws on History in order to do this.[3]

‘This Changes Everything’ by Naomi Klein.

A key theme in the work is justice and equality, both socially and economically. Klein feels that the green movement is a great opportunity to get more people enthused about social change.[4] Where does Klein turn for her example of how this has prospered previously? To the New Deal of 1929, following the Wall Street Crash, and to post WW2 social programmes which both highlight her reliance on history.[5] Really, though, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. As a pupil in school I faintly remember being taught that in science you should always find evidence for your points. This is what Klein does masterfully. The reader is left in no doubt that social change is possible as a result of the green movement, and Klein’s brief overview of modern history is effective nonetheless.

Again and again, Klein uses historical examples. Refuting the often-repeated lazy claim that halting climate change is impossible because it requires a global union of all nations, she writes of how they did, using the UN, ‘from ozone depletion to nuclear proliferation’ (again, lazy but effective historical examples).[6] Klein hopes for people to contribute to the book, to point out its flaws.[7] Her historical analysis is weak, but she is not a historian. Her strengths are in the narrative of the book, and history sits nestled amongst this, effective if underdeveloped. There is room for hope in the book, acres of room, and Klein has an optimistic tone as she uses the past as a weapon in fighting and winning the battle against climate change ignorance and denialism.

In an interview Klein gave to Grist, her optimism shines: ‘we’re going to win this because this is an issue of values, human rights, right and wrong’.[8] And she is right to be confident, it would appear. In This Changes Everything she uses previous examples of how morality overcame the status quo to dominate mainstream belief. Slavery, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination and apartheid are the examples that she uses.[9] This is what the climate movement needs, she deliberates, an engagement with the masses, which can then demonstrate that climate change is happening and that it can be stopped, like slavery and the rest of her list. Klein is right in claiming that the green movement needs to receive ‘the crisis treatment’ that those received and that although politicians can declare one, ‘mass movements of regular people can declare one too’.[10] All that’s needed is the spark. The supports for Klein’s (altogether convincing) argument are of historical ideology, bulldozing history a place amongst the science of climate change.

One of Klein’s main criticisms of our current lifestyle is of the economic system, and, in a YouTube video she claims that unrestrained corporate greed caused both the financial and climate crises, and that as a result, those protesting either should unite.[11] She claims, in This Changes Everything, that ‘our economic and planetary system are now at war’ and that, given the laws of nature will not, our economic system must shift. [12] Philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology, suggests that what governs us is capitalism, without any space for a green movement.[13] Devastatingly, this has already been proved, specifically with Exxon and Shell’s disappointing attitudes to the agreements made at Copenhagen UN Summit in 2009.[14]

But all we have to do is keep on denying how frightened we actually are, in a condition that Klein describes as ‘on-again-off-again ecological amnesia’, and deny that we are so swayed by ideology as Žižek might suggest.[15] The simple reason for this, clearly, is that it is easier to pretend climate does not affect you than to act, disturbingly the same argument that could be applied to slavery or sexism. It is not anyone’s fault, no, but we all contribute to the overall picture by causing irrevocable damage to the planet.

The most frustrating thing, however, is that we know we can stop procrastinating and act. Between 1938 and 1944, ‘use of public transport went up by 87% in the US and 95% in Canada’.[16] Klein again precisely and accurately attributes this to a lack of immediacy of the threat of climate change, in comparison to war. However, climate change is just as immediate, but so far removed from our blinkered, ideological vision of the world that all we are able to see is a perfect future, with science coming to the rescue.

It is time we removed our blinkers and act. ‘Climate change is a slide. Out mission is to harness the shocks and the slides to win the shifts that we want’.[17] These are Kleins words, they have grave consequences. The words that Klein keeps returning to are ‘what is wrong with us?’, and it an apt sentiment. Klein proves that we have the means and ability to halt the slide and resituate climate change as a mass social movement, but this does not seem likely. Naomi Klein’s frustration is infectious, to quote Žižek: ‘the first step to freedom is not just to change reality to fit your dreams, it’s to change the way you dream’, and her book expresses these frustrations well.[18] We must completely reassess how we view climate change, and draw a more realistic picture. A picture not dominated by what we see, but by what exists, and Klein’s historical narrative, coupled with Žižek’s analysis, brings this goal closer.

Tom Richards

---

[1] The Guardian, 1/12/14 ‘Writers pick the best books of 2014: part 2’, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/01/-sp-writers-pick-best-books-2014-part-2, [last accessed 7 March 2015]

[2] The Guardian, 6/3/15, ‘If enough of us decide that climate change is a crisis worthy of Marshall plan levels of response, then it will become one’, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you, [last accessed 7 March 2015]

[3] Kim Bryan, ‘This Changes Everything: a chat with Naomi Klein’, The Practical Journal of Sustainable Living 95 (2015), 14

[4] Bryan, ‘This Changes Everything’, 16

[5] ibid.

[6] The Guardian, 8/3/15, ‘It is our great collective misfortune that the scientific community made its decisive diagnosis of the climate threat at the precise moment when an elite minority was enjoying more unfettered political, cultural, and intellectual power than at any point since the 1920s’, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/08/how-will-everything-change-under-climate-change, [last accessed 7 March 2015]

[7] Bryan, ‘This Changes Everything’, 15

[8] Grist, 9/2/15, http://grist.org/climate-energy/naomi-klein-on-why-low-oil-prices-could-be-a-great-thing/, [last accessed 6 March 2015]

[9] The Guardian, 6/3/15

[10] ibid.

[11] 11/11/11, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8CoxnjjZg, [last accessed 7 March 2015]

[12] The Guardian, 8/3/15

[13] Sophie Fiennes, The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology (2012)

[14] Grist, 10/2/15, http://grist.org/climate-energy/naomi-klein-on-how-to-build-a-more-kick-ass-climate-movement/, [last accessed 7 March 2015]

[15] The Guardian, 6/3/15

[16] The Guardian, 8/3/15

[17] Grist, 10/12/15

[18] Sophie Fiennes, The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology (2012)

Power does not equal responsibility.

The irresponsible Prince Philip Professor of Technology.

It is with great indignation that I this week read an article by Professor Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge, in The Daily Mail slamming the Royal Society for its support of acting on climate change. Kelly, whose specialism is physics, not climate science, is wrong, as climate scientists have repeatedly formed a strong 97% consensus that climate change is happening and we have to act on it now, before our capability to do so is extinguished.[1]

Despite this, Kelly has offered his opinion before, in 2011 and 2012 in letters to the Taranaki Daily News, The Times, and another to The Wall Street Journal.[2] In such an influential position, Kelly should be more considerate of the destructive impact of his rhetoric. Kelly questions but does not explicitly deny climate change; by misquoting noted scientific figures; by focusing on the economics’ now rather than the social impact of not acting, and most of all by questioning the integrity of The Royal Society whose authority is taken as given.

Even if by some miracle, each scientist without exception came to a unanimous conclusion on climate change, what is to say that they would agree on the next action? All this would achieve is relocating the debate from whether climate change exists, to how to solve it. Kelly, wrongfully, claims the Society believes ‘there is no longer room for meaningful debate’, whereas the reality is altering that debate to solution, rather than existence.[3]

We all agree science should be objective, but what Kelly does is distort this for his position. Although Kelly does not see himself as a ‘denier’, he holds this viewpoint, regardless of his political unwillingness to adopt it.[4] Significant commentators Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway argue this creates confusion and therefore inaction amongst the public.[5] Even if Kelly is not blatantly adopting a denialist position, therefore, Oreskes and Conway argue, and I agree, that he is directly responsible for procrastination on climate change. A wealth of options is no good for action, and action is required.[6]

The urgency of climate change is paramount, and those in privileged positions should seriously reconsider confusing literature, like Kelly’s. Historically, you might be horrified to find such a position applied to the battle for civil or gay rights: climate change should be treated with the same gravitas. Kelly can try and elicit gaps in the integrity of climate change, but finally will be remembered by history as out of touch. It is paramount Kelly and his like change their view. Should they not, they risk ridicule by history.

Tom Richards

---

[1] John Cook, ‘Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus in climate change’, The Guardian, 20^th Nov. 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/20/why-we-need-to-talk-about-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change [last accessed 16 March 2015]

[2] Climate Conversation, 5^th June 2011, ‘Prof Kelly shows the middle way’, http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/06/prof-kelly-shows-the-middle-way/, [last accessed 18^th March 2015]

Watts Up With That, 28^th February 2012, ‘Cambridge professor Michael Kelly on “deniers” and climate change: “science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm” ‘, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/cambridge-professor-michael-kelly-on-deniers-and-climate-change-science-has-been-consistently-over-egged-to-produce-alarm [last accessed 17 March 2015]

The Wall Street Journal, 27^th January 2012, ‘No Need to Panic About Global Warming’, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366[[last accessed 17 March 2015].

[3] Michael Kelly, ‘Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world’s leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows’, The Daily Mail, 14^th March 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html [last accessed 17 March 2015]

[4] Watts Up With That, 28^th February 2012.

[5] Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, ‘The Denial of Global Warming’, in Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (London, 2012), p. 170

[6] Charles W. Schmidt, ‘A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism’, Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (2010), A539

Does dressing as Edwardians help the climate change movement?

‘Climate Rush’, an organisation spearheaded by the journalist Tamsin Ormond, have used the suffragette movement to make a parallel between the struggles these women experienced and the struggles that we now relate to climate change, even adopting the slogan ’deeds not words’.[1] Suffragette’s struggle was a success; voting was extended to a selected portion of the female population in 1918. However, since this point perhaps the political mood has shifted. An academic study suggests that the direct action of both Climate Rush and the Suffragette movement were known for (attaching yourself to public property, storming buildings) is not effective at engaging the public in social change, and in fact achieves the opposite. Activists supposedly become ‘associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity’.[2] Might then the suffragette movement provide useful historical muscle, yes, but not the enforcement of social change that it so desires? And is it not bizarre that this movement designed to combat climate change invokes the past with such comic regularity?

Tamsin Omond, centre, the spearhead of Climate Rush.

On the Climate Rush website, the slogan appears: ‘well behaved women seldom make history’.[3] This is a clear statement of intent from a group that clearly favour direct action against those they feel responsible for the planet’s worsening state. But why they feel the need to dress up as Edwardians to do so is beyond me. On a blog written by Ormond, she claims that ‘hopes for the future very much depend on our attitudes and actions now’.[4] There is a sense of unbridled energy and urgency in these words, and this is perhaps why she seems impassioned to attack those in power. They have been described as a ‘suffragette-inspired women-led eco-activist group’.[5] This draws history, somewhat struggling, and somewhat obstinately, into the twenty first century.

Bibi van der Zee uses one good example of this, of a group of protestors super gluing themselves to a statue outside the houses of Parliament in 2009, to the same statue in fact that suffragette protestors had chained themselves too almost 100 years earlier.[6] By wearing the red sashes of the suffragette movement the three women and one man involved are clearly branding themselves as a kind of modern-day suffragette. Van der Zee claims that Climate Rush ‘like to make a splash, and if it’s funny, headline-grabbing, and provocative, all the better’.[7]

History, then, may well merely be a bizarre instrument in which the organisation has found it easy to grab attention, in this instance to protest against the construction of more coal fired power stations.[8] Grabbing attention is clearly a key part of the media strategy of Climate Rush, as such a group needs the swell of public opinion behind them in order to support their (often illegal) actions. In this case, their actions appear to be too radical for an attendant, who was interviewed by The Telegraph, and appeared more concerned with the ‘minor glue damage’ left by the group than by their protest.[9] Admittedly this is a limited sample but the media choose to focus on historicising the protest rather than their causes, demonstrating its inefficiency. it is fascinating that the media subscribe to this mode of protest, by reporting on the suffragette connections substantially following the Climate Rush events. The group are not taken seriously, all that garners attention is their costumes, which surely cannot be their aim.

How successful is such a group, then? There is support from at least one major organisation, Greenpeace. On their website, referring to Climate Rush’s demonstration against Heathrow’s third runway, again in 2009, they reference their ‘impeccable timing’ and suggest that they were supported by members of groups ‘from the WI to the Labour Party’.[10] However, the support of either one of these organisations is not surprising and is not, therefore, a significant demonstration of support.

Even if the Labour Party does not directly support Climate Rush, it is hardly surprising that its left-leaning membership base would support it. The same rings true with Greenpeace, who also advocate direct action protest. The WI’s support is again expected, as the Suffragette connection allows these members to make an easy connection between their past and the present.

Perhaps this is the point however. Perhaps Climate Rush is not even trying to engage the entire population, and that the people it is trying to engage are the people that it is, the average left-leaning voter and those who believe in women’s rights and in the importance of enforcing ecology. It is not surprising that the target audience of Climate Rush support its development, but it is encouraging for the continuation of this cult of Edwardian radicalism. However, this was a picnic in an airport, not storming offices, and this unobtrusive event obviously encourages support from a ‘mainstream’ organisation such as Greenpeace.[11]

An event that was much more threatening was storming of the offices of the Daily Express, protesting against their reporting of climate change, and demanding a meeting with the editor, which was duly achieved.[12] Christine Ottery, writing in the Guardian references the groups ‘trademark’ suffragette sashes. The identity of Climate Rush is entangled with the Suffragette movement, but their fancy dress invokes anything but serious debate. Ottery uses language that implies violence, writing about ‘jumping over sofas’ and ‘running through open security doors while staff were looking the other way’.[13] This sounds like chaotic, laughable violence, which combined with their costumes seriously threatens the credibility of the organisation.

However, Neil Stenhouse, a PhD candidate at George Mason University in the USA, has argued that if your events that garner the most attention look like this, it is almost impossible to ‘mobilize broader support’.[14] The group, however, were able to get a meeting with the editor of the Express, Ian Parrott, who promptly explained that he was only trying to sell newspapers. Climate Rush, however, may well have made an impact in their ability to demonstrate that opposition does exist to this questionable moral stance. Perhaps if they focused more on the issues at hand rather than grabbing headlines more meaningful progress might have been made.

Others who have come into the stern gaze of Ormond include Boris Johnson. They claimed that his current policy is ‘embarrassing’ and of him ‘lacking any political will to address the poor quality of London’s air’.[15] They were joined on this protest by Caroline Russell, who has since being elected as the Green Party’s first MP.[16] Whereas there was difficulty in persuading those in the newsroom to sympathise with the organisation’s ideas, there were much better received in a public, peaceful environment.

Climate Rush hold true to their values. At times it feels the Suffragette movement is invoked without due cause. They are abrasive and reading about their antics is ridiculous, at times even hilarious. Whilst able to meet the expectations of its members and using history to increase their profile, statistics show that the radical tactics they sometimes employ are not effective in engaging with and encouraging social action.[17] The most popular forms of protest are the most peaceful, but it is vital to acknowledge that this is perhaps not the audience with which Climate Rush are most concerned. But they should be, if they are serious. All they appear to be serious about is faux marriages between Waitrose and Shell, which does nothing for their standing.[18] Gimmicks will not educate deniers of climate change. So no, Climate Rush are not helpful to climate change, they are a detriment to the seriousness with which it must be taken.

Waitrose and Shell ‘getting married’, one of the group’s more far-fetched publicity stunts.

Tom Richards

[1] http://climaterush.co.uk

[2] Nadia Y. Bashir, Penelope Lockwood, Alison L. Chasteen, Daniel Nadolny and Indra Noyes, ‘The ironic impact of activists; Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence’, European Journal of Social Psychology 43 (2013), 625

[3] http://climaterush.co.uk

[4] http://climaterushontherun.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/beginnings.html

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/oct/11/climate-rush-daily-express

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5232465/Climate-change-protesters-arrested-after-gluing-themselves-to-statue-in-Houses-of-Parliament.html; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/sep/04/climate-rush-horse-cart

[7] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/sep/04/climate-rush-horse-cart

[8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5232465/Climate-change-protesters-arrested-after-gluing-themselves-to-statue-in-Houses-of-Parliament.html

[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5232465/Climate-change-protesters-arrested-after-gluing-themselves-to-statue-in-Houses-of-Parliament.html

[10] http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/climate-rush-goes-domestic-departures-20090113

[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7823307.stm

[12] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/oct/11/climate-rush-daily-express

[13] ibid.

[14] Neil Stenhouse, ‘Should the Climate Movement Turn Down the Radicalism’, http://theenergycollective.com/neilstenhouse/2142426/should-climate-movement-turn-down-radicalism

[15] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/20/climate-rush-london-air-pollution

[16] ibid.

[17] [17] Nadia Y. Bashir, Penelope Lockwood, Alison L. Chasteen, Daniel Nadolny and Indra Noyes, ‘The ironic impact of activists; Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence’, European Journal of Social Psychology 43 (2013), 614

[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yDbkwtGeWU&t=62

Lynn Townsend White Jr., Ecology and Christianity: Is modern Christianity under threat?

An interesting question might be posed to Pope Francis, who of late seems intent on changing the attitude held by those who follow the Vatican on climate change. On the 11^th December 2014, ZENIT published the Pope’s Message to the UN Convention on Climate Change, in which His Holiness stated that responsibility for the upheaval of the planet’s resource management is ‘a grave ethical and moral responsibility’.[1] It may well be so, and what I do not doubt is the Pope’s honesty in these words, for he must truly believe in the validity of climate change, for doing otherwise as a leader of a group of 1.2 billion people would be naïve. Especially when, as John Vidal writes in the Guardian (27^th December 2014) that Pope Francis’ position is likely to ‘attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in right-wing church circles’, especially those in the USA.[2]

It is clear the pontiff is determined to this ‘green’ system, but Lynn White Jr., a significant medieval historian, suggests our negative attitudes to the planet are ‘rooted in’ Judeo-Christian teleology.[3] White’s 1967 thesis, ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’, attracted significant resistance at the time and has continued to do so since, not because it was universally accepted but because it was it was debated, according to Willis Jenkins.

Lynn Townsend White Jr.

Despite the perception of White being generally sceptical, his thesis continues to be omnipresent in any reference to the origins of our ecological crisis even if only, as is frequently the case, it is debunked. However, the fact that this is the case tells us a huge amount about White’s perception and the stress under which Christianity has felt itself, and the recent desire for reform. Having sustained such an attack from White I think that neo-Christianity has reformed itself with validity, but a further statement of intent is, I feel, needed.

White’s 1967 argument boils down to the teleology that surrounds Judaism and Christianity; that being that the planet was created for man and therefore that everything has an explicit subservient role to mankind. He argues that having lived in this axiom for the last 1700 years it is unsurprising that man has established a monopoly over the world’s resources[4].

He explains away non-Western countries exploiting natural resources by attributing this to Western influence, by Imperialism and the imperialist tendencies that lead many in the West to draw a superior perception of themselves in comparison to those in the East. It is an apathetic conclusion that White draws, arguing that nothing ever ‘had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes’, as in a world created out of nothing by an intangible deity, we have taken it upon ourselves to self-promote rapidly and extensively. [5]

White’s words do ring true with common discussion of climate change and it is of course true that the Lord gives Adam dominion over the Garden of Eden in Genesis, and if one takes Biblical notions seriously (How many 21st Christians do this, though?) then it is an extricable conclusion that man might assume this gives him dominance over nature. However, such is the unwritten anthropocentric belief in nature’s subservience,  all of which, White would argue, stems from Judeo-Christian teleology, we as humanity do appear to follow these Biblical notions regardless.

Further, Elspeth Whitney has reminded us that White is not the first scholar to make a link between Christianity and the birth of Western technology, making reference to Max Weber and Robert Forbes. Where White goes further, she argues, is in constructing a stronger argument regarding European monks in the middle ages intent on exercising their God given stewardship over nature.[6]

Should this be the case, which is not universally or even majorly accepted, there is not necessarily an assumption that Christianity in 2015 has anything to answer for as a result. Jeremy Cohen, contrary to White’s argument, even suggests that medieval monks were far more concerned with the legitimacy of god’s covenant and human sexuality than they were by dominion over nature.[7] Human power over nature then, does have roots biblically, but as does placing women under house arrest during menstruation. The fact that these things are the case does not mean that in the 21^st century we, here and now, should look at Christianity as the antagonist in the struggle against climate change. Doing so is looking at the problem with an exceptionally narrow perspective.

However, what the Pope is currently doing is not narrow. He is drawing on historiographical context from White and demonstrating that the modern Catholic Church is reforming. Should any accusation of guilt be levied at them the Pope can point to the work the Church is already doing. There are grassroots Christian movements working for the environment worldwide, from Japan to Belize, from Honduras to Uganda.[8] These reformative views are not isolated in the Catholic gaze. The Russian Orthodox Church, on its website (http://www.mospat.ru) acknowledges that it is ‘deeply concerned’ about ecological problems and that these problems are caused anthropologically (that is, by humans), not by nature. This is a significant step in modern thinking and it is encouraging that the church shares the accepted scientific consensus.

The associated Christian churches have developed a redemptive attitude to the environment, exemplified in Pope Francis. He has consistently shown support for environmental causes, helping to rehabilitate the Church. Those who are drawn in by the controversial thesis of Lynn White Jr. must now realise that even were this anything approaching accurate, the modern Church is a far cry from this. Moving on from Lynn White is a challenge, as the argument he proposes remains frequented by contemporary scholars of ecology and religion.

Jenkins claims that Christianity should focus less on the aesthetic quality of ecological worldviews and more on what it can do to deliver a new worldview to Christians worldwide.[9] The Pope is the most visible, ostentatious ambassador for the Catholic Church, and his attitude holds deep implications for the followers. In the present and future this attitude is important. In the past, Christianity has been chastised for causing an ecological crisis, but his accusations appear largely unfounded. Christianity in fact seems in rude health in order to deal with the historical implications of climate change and move into a present sphere that can confront climate change directly. The challenge is proving to the public that what the Church did in the past (according to Lynn White) has no implication on its present. The challenge cannot be ignored, but Christianity seems to have adapted itself admirably to building a positive image for followers worldwide.

Tom Richards

[1] ZENIT, 11 December 2014, ‘Pope’s Message to UN Convention on Climate Change’, http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-message-to-un-convention-on-climate-change, [accessed 15/02/15)

[2] The Guardian, 27 December 2014, ‘Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches’, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing, [accessed 15/02/15)

[3] Lynn White Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’, Science 155 (1967), 1205

[4] White, ‘Historical Roots’, 1205

[5] White, ‘Historical Roots’, 1205

[6] Elspeth Whitney, ‘White, Lynn (1907-1987)’, Bron Taylor (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature’ (London, 2005), p. 1735

[7] Whitney, ‘White, Lynn’, p. 1736

[8] Willis Jenkins, ‘After Lynn White: Religious Ethics and Environmental Problems’, Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (2009), 296

[9] Jenkins, ‘After Lynn White’, p. 292

Coming Up

We are Tom and Hattie, second year History students at the University of Exeter, Penryn Campus. This blog will aim to examine in what ways historical analysis can contribute to the climate change debate. Some may assume that the sciences holds sway over this area, but we believe that History as a discipline can offer a huge amount to the debate by drawing on past actions to make present and future decisions.

---

Over the next, few months, we have made the conscious decision to highlight some contentious debates such as: Capitalism and oil; natural disasters; religion and climate; power; radicalism and the ethics surrounding these topics. We are particularly interested in the ethical implications of applying a historical narrative to an issue traditionally and contemporaneously surrounded by the sciences. It would be naïve to suggest that you could study climate change without utilising the sciences, nevertheless we feel that to do so without historical awareness would be equally as naïve. Therefore, we hope to illuminate climate enquiry in these terms, and demonstrate that History as a discipline is requisite to climate study.