I put it to you that the newest world religion is the Religion of Green.
When you assess the themes of most mainstream religious texts, they inevitably involve a set of rules to live by, usually implied by a set of morals who the “lead character” fell foul of due to the ill judgement and greed of others. The lead character, whether a prophet or related to God some other way invariably suffers on behalf of the whole of humankind. Just look at the story of Jesus, a man tortured, beaten and eventually killed in agony for the sins of others.
In analysing this, you eventually come to the conclusion that the secondary incentive for following Christianity in a devout manner is guilt. Jesus allegedly died in agony so you'd be free of sin. But somebody suffered because of the wrongdoings of others.
In the Religion of Green, this concept of guilt is possibly the major incentive for silently (and often in solitude) joining up with and following the congregation (as opposed to fear of condemnation by some god somewhere). The threat of leaving your grandchildren a poisonous legacy, the fact that driving your 4x4 could ultimately result in poor civilians in Third World (nay, “developing”) countries losing their crop. Losing their current coastlines. Losing their countries, essentially.
Does anyone really want to be guilty of what in effect is passive mass genocide?
Many of the most outspoken individuals on climate change are atheists. Have you ever wondered why? I don't doubt that a good number of these people have very noble intentions, do genuinely believe in what they say and do feel something towards the guilt concept themselves. But you have to ask yourself; does the absence of another subliminal leadership and an ultimate superiority in their lives lead them to subscribe to this altogether different religion? I think so. I'm not much of a God person myself. I fall somewhere between the paradigms of agnosticism and a quiet form of atheism. I accept that whatever I say, do or think, sometimes things just happen – things that I don't understand and more than likely never will. I believe in evolution and I believe in cyclical changes. I don't know why the environment changes naturally, I only know that it does. And life on earth will adapt to it within good reason for many millennia to come.
But I did say that in my opinion, guilt was the primary concept of the Religion of Green. And here is why:
When you think about it, guilt can lead us to do some pretty abnormal things. Whereas most of the time, we're in survival mode (we go out work to earn money for the mortgage and the kids' school uniforms, go to the supermarket for groceries, etc), when guilty, we often look to pay back excessively in order to somehow exonerate ourselves and become free of guilt by returning happiness to the aggreived party. After all, how many times have you apologised to your parents, siblings or spouse with a simple gift after a blazing row? Plenty, in my case,
In the Religion of Green, this guilt for all those you're told you're inflicting suffering on is used to extract your cash and to stifle argument in the process. Don't like increased flight taxes? You obviously don't care about those in the Maldives whose crops will fail, coastlines will erode and country will slowly disappear before the World's very eyes. Don't want to give up your 4x4 and buy a “green car”? Well, our future generations better have lungs made of steel, and some seriously enhanced farming techniques to boot. They will starve if you don't pay now.
But you don't want to give up these things. You need them. You have family abroad and you live on a road with no bus route and the railway station is a den for muggers and two miles away. So you'll continue to do as you do in the name of simply doing the necessaries – things like earning money to pay the mortgage, buying your kids school uniforms. Things you have to do when you're in survival mode. A mode which overrides all others.
So what does one do?
Naturally, when we're confronted by two opposing needs of equal importance, we look for the compromise. This is where the Religion of Green really comes into its own. We know what we have to do when we're in survival mode and because we're in that survival mode, we do it automatically. But when you lie in bed at night having done it all for another day, with that forced guilt eating away at you, it can make a lot more sense to simply not oppose what's going on because you remember that photo of a weak polar bear slipping off melting ice. You remember the picture of famine, the TV articles and the YouTube clips.
But then you remember - paying a few extra quid for that flight to see your parents or in-laws in Canada goes towards helping those most affected by climate change. So in effect, you're forgiven. You've paid your penance. You'll be less likely to oppose higher car taxes because fresh faced chaps like Ed Miliband say the money you pay is all going to help those in poorer countries deal with the monstrous consequences that your functional existence causes. And you'll be prepared to keep paying because you have a need to do what you do in order to keep your family in food, clothing, warmth and a home.
It is about guilt, but most of all it's about money. It's about posh dinners for senior politicians, TV executives and journalists. It's about jobs for the boys and it's about business deals.
If you still think it's simply about reducing carbon emissions, then you need to start asking yourself some simple questions, before asking the same questions to your favourite climate alarmists.
Have you ever wondered why, when the British Government claims to be serious about tackling and reducing CO2 emissions, they are so pro mass immigration? After all, more people in the country burning fossil fuels equates to more CO2, does it not? These immigrants will need to fly home on occasion to see their relatives back home, which will mean more aviation activity and hence more flight tax revenue, no? An answer perhaps.
And have you ever wondered why a government so committed to reducing the nations' carbon footprint would commission the development of a new runway at Heathrow? How about the Establishment's consensus that we should have everyone in Britain connected to the internet? After all, last time I checked, computers used considerably more in the way of electricity per hour than a (now domestically banned) 100 watt traditional light bulb. And MPs are using the internet more and more as a communication channel, so they're obviously very pro the use of computers at home.
But do ask yourself. And if you're still unsure, start asking the Establishment, the media, the BBC and all the other propagators of a science which is far from settled.
And please watch this, if you think it's just me who is sceptical.
No comments:
Post a Comment