Not just the Bush Administration, but also Jonathon Porritt is in denial about the implications of global warming

Jonathon Porritt was wrong when he suggested in yesterday evening's Any Questions that the Bush Administration is not in denial about the implications of global warming, but being cynical and deliberately immoral. President Bush and most of his Administration have children and grandchildren (or hope to have them) and I am quite sure that their attitude towards global warming (and sustainability in general) would be very different if they realised how they will be thought of as parents and grandparents in 10 or 20 years time.

I think the Bush administration understands better than most what the implications of countering global warming and achieving sustainability would be, if admitted to, for the American economy and way of life: namely that both are fundamentally unsustainable. Now that really is difficult to face up to, and virtually no one, including Jonathon Porritt, is doing so. He has deceived himself into believing that free-market capitalism and the grossly materialistic lifestyles (and lifestyle aspirations) it engenders and depends upon, can somehow be made sustainable. But he is wrong. In this respect, Jonathon Porritt is as much in denial as everyone else. As part of the establishment, he's allowed to rock the boat a little, but not to point out that it is sinking.

The way things look at the moment, we will NOT meet the challenge of global warming and the more general problem of achieving sustainability will be solved for us - by a ruthless mother nature, who WILL take the necessary measures. Only they won't be the ones that we would choose. She is not at all squeamish: if it entails reducing human numbers by several billion, or even eliminating our species entirely, that is what she will do.

There is not a lot of time left, but a little, for some of us, at least, to come out of denial and face up to the reality of the inherent non-sustainability of our economy and way of life, and to create an alternative. But it will involve making radical changes to some of the values, attitudes and aspirations on which much of our existing socio-economic order is based. Unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins, these are rooted in our "more animal than human" nature.

www.spaceship-earth.org

Link: BBC Radio 4 Any Questions

c

To: anyanswers@bbc.co.uk Re: Not just the Bush Administration is in denial about the implications of global warming Date: Saturday 24 June 06

, Jonathon Porritt was wrong when he suggested in yesterday evening's Any Questions that the Bush Administration is not in denial about the implications of global warming, but being cynical and deliberately immoral. President Bush and most of his Administration have children and grandchildren (or hope to have them) and I am quite sure that their attitude towards global warming (and sustainability in general) would be very different if they realised how they will be thought of as parents and grandparents in 10 or 20 years time. I think the Bush administration understands better than most what the implications of countering global warming and achieving sustainability would be, if admitted to, for the American economy and way of life: namely that both are fundamentally unsustainable. Now that really is difficult to face up to, and virtually no one, including Jonathon Porritt, is doing so. He has deceived himself into believing that free-market capitalism and the grossly materialistic lifestyles (and lifestyle aspirations) it engenders and depends upon, can somehow be made sustainable. But he is wrong. In this respect, Jonathon Porritt is as much in denial as everyone else. As part of the establishment, he's allowed to rock the boat a little, but not to point out that it is sinking. The way things look at the moment, we will NOT meet the challenge of global warming and the more general problem of achieving sustainability will be solved for us - by a ruthless mother nature, who WILL take the necessary measures. Only they won't be the ones that we would choose. She is not at all squeamish: if it entails reducing human numbers by several billion, or even eliminating our species entirely, that is what she will do. There is not a lot of time left, but a little, for some of us, at least, to come out of denial and face up to the reality of the inherent non-sustainability of our economy and way of life, and to create an alternative. But it will involve making radical changes to some of the values, attitudes and aspirations on which much of our existing socio-economic order is based. Unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins, these are rooted in our "more animal than human" nature. www.spaceship-earth.org Link: BBC Radio 4 Any Questions c