CLIMATE ACCORD AND THE POLITICS OF FRIENDSHIP
I’m just putting the finishing touches to a book entitled ‘Dante and the Sweet Symphony of Paradise.’ It’s a book that attempts to relate the great Italian poet to the problem of climate change, marking the journey from the tuneless noise of the Inferno to the harmony of Paradise. Attunement, the way diverse voices join together to sing as one. That’s work to come. It is very much a continuation of a previous book I have written on Dante, Dante’s Enamoured Mind.
In the new Dante book I pay close attention to what lessons the poet to help us address the crisis in the climate system, with respect to how we relate to the world around us, but most of all in terms of how we relate to each other. A genuine climate accord achieves not only peace on and with the planet, but peace with each other, a peace with justice.
Music unites, and makes friends out of enemies. In the new Dante book I shall be examining the internal music of Dante’s Comedy in order to present a musical model of politics. That describes a politics in which there is a unity between the parts to form the one harmonious whole. It’s a noble vision, and one that sounds hopelessly idealistic (and even ominously authoritarian) when presented in just a few lines. Here, I emphasise that vision for what it promises in terms of a climate accord – the bringing together of various sides who find it within themselves to look further beyond their lesser differences to grasp the greater commonalities that unite them. I place Dante firmly within an Aristotelian and Thomist tradition in seeing politics and friendship as things that thrive and prosper in close proximity and communities of practice and character. In the Convivio, Dante emphasises that ‘the habit of virtue, whether moral or intellectual, cannot be had of a sudden, but must be acquired through practice’ (Convivio (I, xi, 7). Dante connects this virtue with proximity, friendship and love. He thus writes of ‘nearness’ as ‘the seed of friendship’, of language, the vernacular, as a cause of love ‘which is nearer to me than the others.’ (Convivio (I, xii, 6). These are the qualities which I seek to bring to politics as a field that is more than the expression and mediation of division and conflict but is integral to creative human self-realisation, the political society as the Good and Just society. When love infuses social relations in such a way, we are able to constitute politics as the society of friends. No legalistic social contract is required to bind individuals and hold them to the common good; instead, each and all will work together in love for common ends that benefit each and all. Dante has found a more enduring tie than that contained in a contract concerned with the terms we negotiate and agree out of self-interest – the greater Love that unites each and all. Love is the spirit of the laws. I have returned to Dante this year for a specific reason – the need for a climate accord on this planet that is more than a legalistic contract and more that an agreement of mutual self-interest determined by ‘rational choice.’ Dante presents an ethic of attunement which identifies politics as a creative human fulfilment that establishes the basis of a communitarian political society that is bound together by warm and affective ties and solidarities. And that is to see a genuine climate accord as requiring more than laws and contracts but the constitution of political community as a society of friends. The Good and Just political state, then, is at bottom a society of love.
"And so we see that all the causes that engender and increase friendship have joined together in this friendship, from which we must conclude that not simply love but most perfect love is what I ought to have, and do have, for it."
[Convivio (I, xiii, 10)]
It seems much too simple to say that love is the answer. Millions have said so, to no great effect. It depends on what we mean by love. In Dante’s Enamoured Mind I write that Dante knew the spiritual quality of love:
‘But for Dante, love was also an active concept in politics. This is not as surprising as it may sound. From Plato and Aristotle to Aquinas, friendship, amity, is the firm foundation of political life of the community. Plato had defined justice as the social virtue par excellence; Aristotle had defined the human being as a zoon politikon, a social animal. 'All things in common among friends' the saying goes, and it is the personal virtue of individuals that ensure their common use.’ (Aristotle Politics 1981: 115). Aristotle is the most realistic of philosophers, but he expatiates at length on love and friendship as the common ground of politics. Aristotle distinguishes philoi as ‘friends’ and philia, philein etc. as 'affection', 'fond' etc. from philauton as 'selfishness', 'lover of self. The ancient conception defines humanity as a social and cooperative species, possessed of both philia (friendship) and dike (justice).
St Thomas Aquinas combines will, love, justice and mercy within the ultimate end for human beings in relation to God. He makes love and the passions the very naturalistic basis of morality.
Human beings need others in order to be themselves. The common good and the common life is at the heart of any politics so defined. Politics is a matter of love. The key question of politics is how disparate men and women might, as social individuals, join together in their various orders and degrees, in order to best live and flourish well. Does the binding element come from within, via love, or does it have to be imposed from without, via law?
‘That wisdom and control should, if possible, come from within; failing that it must be imposed from without, in order that, being under the same guidance, we may all be friends and equals’ (Plato Bk ix 1987:356).
Concord, agreement, amity – it is the politics of friendship, the politics of love. I hope to spell this vision out at length in the new book to come on Dante, Dante and the Sweet Symphony of Paradise. That’s work to come. My main interest here, however, is not to promote this new book of mine on Dante, but to recover the worth and dignity of politics as a field of practical reason by which human beings who have different views and interests come together and find a way of settling conflicts peacefully so as to live as one. That doesn’t mean universal agreement, far from it. It does mean unity to something greater than the ideas and interests that divide us. Which is why I introduce this piece with Dante, who ended the Comedy with an affirmation of ‘the love that moves the sun and the other stars.’ That’s an important line with respect to this politics of amity I shall be defending here.
These thoughts were provoked by the fine words contained in the final speech of MP and campaigner against climate change Arnold Chan to Canada's House of Commons, which were read by a friend and colleague, Mark Holland, days after Mr. Chan died of cancer.
Here is the link to the full text and video, Arnold Chan’s Final Words in the House of Commons, September 20th, 2017. When he knew he was going to die, Mr. Chan wrote this speech about how he was concerned with the role of politics as involved in making the world a better place for each and all. Start at 2-00 on the speech and politics, 2-46 for the actual speech itself. These words are, indeed, a clarion call for democracy. They also affirm the worth and dignity of politics.
The speech outlines the challenges that our political institutions are facing under the stress of climate change, accelerating technological change, and social polarization.
Chan begins by focusing on the exercise of democracy. That’s an institutional and a psychological question – are the individuals composing the demos capable of acting as active, informed, other-regarding citizens? And do the institutional means and mechanisms for such civic action exist? More on this below with respect to AC Grayling.
Chan’s inaugural speech in Parliament focused on the theme of democracy, and he proceeded to identify the changes that were required in Parliament in order to reverse the trend of dysfunction in the conventional political sphere. In seeking this political reformation, Chan had the critical challenges of the future in mind, and the role of democracy and democratic institutions in meeting those challenges. He speaks of the three existential threats that will face future generations: climate change, accelerating technological change, and the parochialism and social unrest that arise in reaction to these first two forces. He explicitly states: ‘Climate change is undeniably the focus of attention today, as it should be.’ So that identifies the character of his politics and makes clear where his commitments lie.
‘It is imperative that we stop treating climate change as solely an environmental issue, but recognize it as an all-encompassing priority that we as a society and a government must confront with the utmost urgency.’
And Chan proceeds to analyse the nature of the problem and identify the way forward (I urge you to read the text and/or listen to the speech). That’s my politics too, that’s where my political commitments lie and energies go. But … in light of the above, that’s not politics as such, but an expression of a specific politics within the wider political community. Climate accord is about communication, citizen interaction and discourse, a mutual learning and respect. And this is what politics is about, or ought to be about:
‘We are Members of Parliament, a body which is ultimately about civilized discussion and debate. The word “Parliament” itself derives from the French word “parler”: to speak. Our task is to exercise democracy through communication, deliberation, and ultimately decision-making. Not in our own interest, but in the interest of the people. We are representatives of and we are responsible to the people of our country, and it is our responsibility and our duty to try and meet the challenges of the day through our best collective effort.’
We need the political sphere to live up to its ideal when it comes to addressing the crisis in the climate system. A climate accord requires political society to find a way of bringing people out of their set positions and into a genuine engagement with each other: ‘we must remember that our greatest strengths lie within our civility to each other, our humanity in the face of our own limitations, and our own willingness to serve. We can adapt to change, we can respond to challenges, but we adapt and respond best when we do so after reasoned debate with an open mind and through listening carefully to the needs of those we are so fortunate to serve.’ I fundamentally agree with those words, but with the proviso that the capacity of politics to mediate and transcend conflict in this way presupposes a commonality and shared interest or good that can no longer be taken for granted given the divisions that are running deep in modern society. These conflicts may be incommensurate, rendering this affirmation of the politics of amity impotent, lacking in social content and identity as was as moral force. All claim to want to serve the common good, but where is the ethic and identity connecting individual self-interest and social interest? I put these points not to deny the force of Chan’s affirmation of politics, but to seek its social and moral investment.
But I certainly agree with Chan that ‘we owe it to ourselves, our community and our children to continue to strive for improvement in our democratic institutions, so that we can better serve our communities, and better meet those challenges of the future.’ I think we can all agree with that, whatever politics we hold. Chan states that ‘diversity is healthy, and increases the chances of survival and success,’ which again is a point that most people can agree with. ‘The greater the range of ideas and opinions that are brought to bear on the problems of our day, the more likely that we as an institution will be able to come up with workable solutions that serve our communities. And a greater diversity of members will in turn bring those broader ideas forward.’
We can all agree with those words in general, in abstraction from actual political debates and conflicts. But once we are involved in those debates and conflicts, we nevertheless think we are right and our opponents are wrong, which is why we seek to persuade, and want our view to prevail. And this, of course, is the hard part in politics – can we handle debate, discussion and conflict without fracturing into entrenched positions? Can politics be a society of friends?
Chan says: ‘I would also call upon greater empowerment of diverse voices as a foundation of addressing the challenges that face us.’
I return to Dante’s vision of the harmonious society here:
‘Diverse voices make sweet music.
Just so our differing ranks in this our life
create sweet harmony among these wheels.
[Paradiso VII 124-126]
That’s a view that goes beyond the exchange of ideas and a mutual learning through a plurality of ideas to a vision of a unified society in itself. We don’t have that society, and getting politics right is integral to achieving such a society: ‘we should not be satisfied with the status quo; we should expect more for ourselves and our children’, says Chan. He then delivers the crucial, and most challenging, line:
‘But at the same time it is up to us to be braver, to go beyond our comfort zones and engage with people of other backgrounds, to diversify and broaden our relationships, and to seek the betterment of all. We have to take a chance, to engage and to participate. That will help to strengthen the institutions that serve us all.’
That’s the challenging bit. Because it means engaging with those who don’t share your political commitments, and may be opponents of your views. I want to read these words in light of what A.C. Grayling says below, that ‘Tyrannies are efficient to the point of mercilessness. Democracies are inefficient to the point of ineffectiveness at times.’ If true, this would seem to imply that democratic institutions are not up to the challenge of climate change at all. Indeed, it is the self-interested and short-term concerns of democracy, certainly in the atomistic model that prevails, that is implicated in the incremental actions bringing about climate change. So that would seem to point clearly to an environmental philosopher king? Not so quick. If the divisions and structural forces driving climate change run deep throughout the entire social metabolism, then their remedy will require more than strong and wise government from above. And here, as I shall show, is a sticking point and dividing line when it comes to climate politics – those who favour ‘small government’ deny not so much the science with respect to the problem of climate change as the proposed political solutions, which they see as having been dictated rather than deliberated and decided democratically. And they have a point – and a big one. We cannot expect science to do the job of politics and ethics. If we conflate the worlds of theoretical reason with respect to the ‘objective’ world and practical reason with respect to the world of human social relationships, then we will lose a genuine and effective politics and ethics. These things are not secondary to statements of theoretical and factual knowledge, but the essential means by which human beings determine the terms by which they live their lives together. In other words, we need to bridge the gap between theoretical reason and practical reason in such a way as to recognise the legitimacy of each of these forms in their respective spheres. The precise character of climate politics cannot be simply read-off from climate science. I shall make my position clear now – I do believe that the science on climate change makes system-change a condition of the long-term survival of human civilisation. Now that’s precisely the kind of large-claim that those sceptical of climate action consider a form of bullying. If the science says something is necessary, why bother with debate and deliberation, the very stuff of politics? You can’t debate climate science, what do the opinions of people matter on statements of fact? We hear this constantly, but it does nothing to persuade those who are sceptical, and with good reason – it conflates two entirely different things. The opinions of people matter a great deal in politics, and it is the sense that they don’t, that that voice is being overridden by those armed with scientific fact, that lies behind much of the resistance to climate action.
Chan concludes his message with a commitment to democracy:
‘However, if we maintain our commitment to our democratic traditions, and broaden and diversify our institutions to reflect the range of voices present in our society, I’m confident that we can take the steps necessary to meet these challenges and to flourish, one step at a time.’
That’s a statement for democracy against not merely tyranny but also the notion of climate action imposed from above through the agency of environment philosopher kings. That’s been my consistent view in political philosophy since taking up Plato – not as a rejection of Plato, but as recognising the need to develop a response to Plato’s critical question – can democracy supply itself with the principle of self-limitation necessary to its effective functioning and survival?
I come now to Bob Inglis, former Republican senator, advocate of climate action, but sceptical of large-scale environmental schemes engineered by government.
Inglis makes an appeal for a unity around commonalities, as against employing intellectual and cultural divisions to entrench positions and block movement. ‘Why go around being gratuitously offensive?’ he asks. ‘Cultural wedges are useful in political wars, but they are not so useful when trying to bring America together on something like climate change.’ He’s talking about evolution in particular, and the way this divides people according to belief (or non-belief). He’s getting at the divisive nature of the science vs religion war, a war that as far as I’m concerned is utterly phony, and derives from the separation of the worlds of fact and value – a separation that, I have argued time and again, disables us and leaves us incapable of motivating people to join together and act in light of the evidence pointing to the need for change. I shan’t repeat myself on this, just refer people to my other writings (the need to bring the worlds of fact and value back into relation is a dominant theme.) I see morality as something more than mere value judgements, something more than expressions of irreducible subjective opinion, with questions of good and bad incapable of being resolved. And that takes me to Bob Inglis’ attempt at climate communication and unity – he sees the science vs religion war as hobbling attempts at climate action rather than helping it:
‘I suppose I’m from elsewhere. I’m from a place that believes in the Creator, in order and in purpose. We believe that love underlies it all, even if we’re not always consistent or winsome in expressing it.’
You can see now why I opened with Dante’s affirmation of ‘the love that moves the sun and the other stars.’ I’m from the same place that Bob Inglis is from. His politics are not mine. He’s a conservative: ‘In the world I inhabit, people are, in fact, holding on to God and guns. The sophisticated look down on us. They assume that it’s our kind who are holding back action on climate change.’
So the call to be brave and engage with those who think differently means, in the first instance, losing that patronising and sneering contempt for others. There are many reasons why many are ‘leery’ when it comes to climate action, and they are not all attributable to a denial of climate science. There are political and ethical concerns with respect to climate solutions, particularly the empowerment of government and ruling elites and bureaucracies. Such people don’t want to be governed by environmental philosopher kings and benevolent despots, who claim to be armed with unanswerable science, and neither do I.
Inglis puts it this way: ‘Is it equally possible that the environmental left is holding back action by holding on to wedges? Is it possible that constant proselytizing on things like evolution holds back the acceptance of the science of climate change?’ I’d phrase this in terms of the science vs religion war in the context of the fact-value divide. The environmental left in these terms is big on asserting the science, dictating the politics and ignoring the ethics.
In the context of this divide, I qualify as neither left nor right – I think it is a phony division, one of those false antitheses that are guaranteed to dissolve unity and prevent action. So I shall affirm the worth and dignity of politics as a society of friendly communication and persuasion and set that politics in the context of a world that recognises the claims of both fact and value, theoretical reason and practical reason, and which allies scientific knowledge and technological know-how with the motivational economy of human beings. My training is in history, in the world of fact and detail – and human events. And what that background has told me is that change always comes about through the combination of material interests and forces and moral and metaphysical motivations. Try to isolate one of these component parts and run them against the others, and there will be confusion and inertia and contradiction.
Inglis makes an appeal to end the science vs religion division.
‘The late Carl Sagan used to say, “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” That’s not what people like me believe. We believe that God has created us, sustained us, redeemed us and will restore us. We’re certain that we couldn’t prove the existence of our God to the satisfaction of the most ardent secularist, but we’re equally certain that they couldn’t disprove the existence of our God.’
I’m not sure atheists would feel the need to disprove the existence of God, and would argue that victory goes to the most parsimonious hypothesis. The point, though, is how utterly beside the point this controversy is with respect to generating the common good will to act on climate change. If we make effective action on the climate crisis conditional upon the triumph of one side over the other in the science vs religion war, then we are doomed – simple – because that ‘debate’ is incapable of resolution, and is way beside the point in any case.
‘So if the goal is to bring people together on climate change, and quickly, why go around being gratuitously offensive? Why ask people if they believe in evolution? Why ask them to accept a secularist creed?’
For my part, I don’t believe that evolution is a ‘secularist creed’. But, I repeat, it is so not the issue. If people who demand climate action are determined to wage war on the religious beliefs of people, then they will be treated as enemies and resisted – and the climate action we need will also be resisted. Inglis doesn’t see the need to accept a ‘secular creed’ as a condition for climate action. And he sees the danger in framing climate politics in this way. People of belief will resist climate action on these terms, perceiving it as an explicit attack on views they hold dear and live by.
‘Well, we’re here on climate change. We’re all right here together. We can argue about faith vs. science, we can keep driving wedges, we can proselytize a positivist philosophy of science being the measure of all things, or we can get to work solving the problem. There’s no value in making people feel like throwbacks or laggards. There’s nothing to be gained by asking people to cast aside their most deeply held beliefs.’
Work with the values and ideals that people have in their communities, and make the challenges we face comprehensible in those terms, that’s the way forward. That’s not just being brave, it is being humanly and sociologically sophisticated, recognising that human beings as social beings live in context in time and place, and that questions of ethics and politics are not questions of political abstraction and rational calculation. Large-scale ambitious schemes of environmental action can only succeed by being grounded in humanly-scaled practical reasoning, communities of practice and love of place. I repeat that view consistently to assuage fears of a top-down globalism under the auspices of a self-appointed, self-concerned environmental task force that has appropriated the common good to its own ends. Without the context of participatory structures, extensive public spaces, and social transformation, climate action is an empty formalism – and will be rejected as such. It fails to motivate, and fails to incite the co-responsiveness we need to address the climate crisis. Which is why I emphasise that politics matters – it is the field in which diverse men and women come together to determine their common affairs. Fail to respect that, and climate politics will be dry and gutted.
This comes to a key passage in Bob Inglis’ article:
‘If climate science is presented as data and not a belief system, some of my neighbors could come to accept it. Presented as a package deal akin to a creed, they will reject it soundly.’
I think this is contentious. I take his point – when climate action is presented as a package deal determined by the science, and is beyond deliberation and discussion, then people will reject it. Climate solutions are a question of politics and ethics concerning how people choose to live their lives together. This may well be informed by science, and it is wise that it should be. But not dictated. I’m cautious of the implication here that climate science has been presented as a ‘belief system’ or political creed – as ‘socialism’, with respect to the need for large scale government intervention and action. There’s a need to keep the distinction between the science and the politics in view, but also be aware that there is also a need to relate the findings of science to the political world of policy and action. And that’s very different from presenting climate science as a ‘belief system’ or political creed.
Inglis is clearly sceptical of climate action as a ‘package deal’, that is, as large-scale, top-down government intervention. We are right to be sceptical, and examine political solutions on their merits. In which case, we neither oppose nor embrace ‘large’ or ‘small’, public or private, state or market solutions on ideological grounds, but examine them for their appropriateness and effectiveness. Here, Inglis, behind his appeal to climate communication and unity, reveals the particular nature of his politics:
‘With respect, we can win over those who are as yet unconvinced by the science. We can show them a non-regulatory solution to climate change that doesn’t grow the government and that can improve economic performance. We can show them a way to un-tax income (something we want more of) and put a tax on pollution (something we want less of).’
We can indeed do that, if we think it would be the most appropriate and effective and equitable way of tackling climate change. I just don’t think it will do the trick. But I do commend Bob Inglis as a Republican who directs republicEn.org, a community of conservatives committed to action on climate change, and is participating with Spartanburg Green Congregations.
And here is my point – we need to be brave and reach out to those with whom there is a common end and see if we can achieve a commonality with respect to the means for securing that end. As someone who could be described as an environmental leftist who believes that ‘love underlies it all,’ (does that make me a rightist too?) Bob Inglis presents a conservative view that is cogent and coherent. It is very similar to the view of Katharine Hayhoe, another conservative voice that I have a great deal of time for. We need to work together in love on common solutions that benefit us all, and that means an inclusive and consensual approach in politics so that the many can come to live together as one … But here’s the rub … and here’s the dividing line in climate politics … for all of the emphasis (with which I agree) on individuals ‘owning’ the solutions to climate problems, bringing the global problem of climate change within comprehensible political scale, we need that system-change too.
To repeat ... the need for system-change.
In a recent report, experts outlined four steps that could help us get on track.If the world is to have a serious chance of limiting global warming to the internationally-agreed 2 ℃ limit this century, the transition to renewable energy should happen much more rapidly than current efforts, according to a new study in the journal Science.
Without this "rapid and deep decarbonization," the paper concludes, we won't be able to reign in the projected growth in global carbon emissions quickly enough. Scientists agree this would inevitably tip the planet's climate system into dangerous global warming.
The stakes are high.
A separate new paper in Science Advances also suggests that our current carbon emissions trajectory may trigger a planetary mass extinction event after 2100, which would play out over the ensuing centuries and millenia.
Emissions would need to begin immediately dropping off a cliff, hitting zero by 2080
The authors warn that current progress has been far too slow. They argue that climate researchers, policymakers, and current models of transition tend to take a far too piecemeal approach, focusing "on a single piece of the low-carbon transition puzzle, yet avoid many crucial real-world elements for accelerated transitions."
This disjointed approach has left us on a path toward catastrophe. Professor Benjamin K. Sovacool from the University of Sussex, a co-author on the study, said: "Current rates of change are simply not enough. We need to accelerate transitions, deepen their speed and broaden their reach."
This can only be done with new approaches to decarbonization, which the authors define as four key steps. Step 1 is system change:
Change the whole system, not just its parts
The study urges policymakers, investors, and scientists to focus on "sociotechnical systems," defined as the "interlinked mix of technologies, infrastructures, organisations, markets, regulations and user practices." These work together to deliver important social needs, such as personal mobility.
The core challenge is that prevailing fossil fuel-dependent "sociotechnical systems" have developed over many decades. They are now resistant to change because their components "coevolved" in a way that was self-reinforcing.
To overcome this, the authors say, requires simultaneous changes at multiple levels. Niche technological innovations in specific sectors, which differ radically from the "dominant existing system," need to be amplified with greater policy support. This should be combined with efforts to weaken the existing system, align innovations with other key technologies, and cultivate the "social, political and cultural processes" that facilitate their rapid adoption.
The ultimate takeaway is that avoiding dangerous global warming is still possible. If humanity rises to the challenge, we could simultaneously avert disaster and create a better world for all.
Yet that needs much more than simply signing up to ambitious emissions pledges. To actually meet those pledges, governments, investors, businesses, and communities who grasp the scale of the challenge will have to work together to change the way our entire "sociotechnical systems" operate.
Bob Inglis and other conservatives would reject this as an attempt to sell a ‘package deal’, exploiting climate science as a ‘belief system’ and political ‘creed.’ Rather than simply say that the conservative voice is ‘wrong’ on this, it behoves those calling for something with such wide-ranging implications as radical change to show that system-change is based on sound reasoning and analysis, with an explanation which shows how an alternative institutional infrastructure and economic system will not only work in theory but will command support and motivate efforts in practice. In other words, if we are arguing for system-change, we need to be clear and cogent in doing this, and be aware that this is indeed a matter of civilisation building, with all that that implies with respect to ways of life, values, culture, beliefs etc. It is easy enough to call for radical change – but those who do so need to supply constructive models for the alternative society and propose transition strategies to get us from here to there, with popular legitimacy. Unless we really are merely imposing a package deal from above, in which we cease to be citizens with a voice and become merely playthings of our new gods, the environmental philosopher kings. I don’t believe in them. But I do think that addressing climate change in terms of system-change is necessarily a ‘package deal’. I agree with the thrust of Bob’s argument, the need to come out of our political trenches and actually engage with each other and establishes commonalities. But we live in a political world and the implications of climate science are inevitably political. Yes, we should always be sceptical when it comes to ‘package deals’ of any kind – but doesn’t rule large-scale changes out, it just makes sure we don’t buy a pig in a poke, as my old DOS used to warn me when I argued for large-scale social transformation. The onus is on the radicals, as it should be, to actually engage with others, respect contrary voices and respond to criticisms (for the record, I do actually think environmentalists do this, but that communication and engagement needs more than an exchange of facts – it needs a ‘package deal’ that bridges the gaps between knowledge, technology, ethics, policy, government, citizens and action. And that means taking politics seriously, not merely in the sense of taking sides in the various competing platforms – respecting the mutual learning through diversity and exchange as stated earlier – but as something more profound with respect to the greater unity we share with respect to commonalities and common ground.
So I return to the words in climate campaigner and MP Arnold Chan’s final speech:
‘But at the same time it is up to us to be braver, to go beyond our comfort zones and engage with people of other backgrounds, to diversify and broaden our relationships, and to seek the betterment of all. We have to take a chance, to engage and to participate. That will help to strengthen the institutions that serve us all.’
Chan’s speech is powerful and moving and issues a call to action and responsibility to us all - it involves a commitment to strengthen and deepen our democratic institutions, which is surely what an effective political response to the crisis in the climate system entails - working together in love on common solutions that benefit us all.
There are many standouts in this beautiful speech, but that challenge to the world of politics, to each and all of us, as citizens or as political leaders, really stands out. How do we heal a world that is divided? We can't just keep talking past each other and fighting this out as a power struggle decided by interests, we have to make common cause, and that is what politics ought to be about. We have to recover that vision of a politics that mediates conflict and enables us to settle differences amicably. Politics in that ancient sense of being a dimension of living well together has to be a part of any climate resolution, a peace with justice, a reconciliation without recrimination. That’s a vision of politics as integral to our living together on this planet as a common home. Otherwise, all we will get is a mutual self-cancellation and self-annihilation, a narcissism of petty differences that fails to see the greater things that unite us.
It’s a tough call, especially when there is no doubt that there are groups and interests organising to entrench and extend difference in order to protect vested interests. But they are not the whole public, just an interested party trying to lead and mislead people away from the common good. So I will continue to engage with those of different views, an approach that has been sorely tested by Trump’s decision to withdraw from Paris, particularly the way he did it. It can be exhausting and frustrating, with a need for periods of rest and recuperation as others take up the work. But that’s politics, communicating with others in order to achieve unity in difference so that the many can live together as one.
Arnold Chan’s words came as a reminder to myself to keep to this inclusive and respectful approach, even when taking a particular political view. It is a difficult one to maintain when there are people out there who are determined to negate, obfuscate and obstruct. From the other side, conservative voices would maybe see me as advancing a political ‘creed’ behind an ostensibly scientific argument. We need to be honest about politics, and not smuggle contentious positions in behind supposedly unarguable scientific fact. This is an old bugbear of mine, and I can point to many past publications where I have raised precisely this issue of ‘package deal’ politics. This passage from Of Gods and Gaia is one of many places where I criticized the authoritarian potentials of environmental politics. Here, I was concerned to reject the planetary engineering of Stewart Brand:
“‘Science proposes, society disposes’ Brand asserts (Brand ch 7 2009). Scientists propose, subjects dispose. That is a technocracy, not a democracy. The principle of self-assumed obligation holds that citizens obey only those laws they have had a hand in making. There is no legal obligation in a technocracy. This is a recipe for tyranny or anarchy, the anarchy of the rich and the powerful as a tyranny over the people.
Even if citizens and consumers fully understand the science, they are perfectly entitled to exercise their own judgement and decide accordingly. To assert that science must have its way reveals scientists at their most arrogant. There is a nasty, anti-democratic streak running through the whole argument and this derives from the assumption that scientists have a monopoly over knowledge.”
Many people would be inclined to support climate action if their fears of the tyranny of abstraction in politics (and money) could be assuaged. I share those fears. I opt for democracy over tyranny. Here is the Grayling article I referred to earlier: We need to make democracy work to save the planet
'Tyrannies are efficient to the point of mercilessness. Democracies are inefficient to the point of ineffectiveness at times. The very nature of the political process in democracies means that leaders are reluctant to burden the populace with restrictions and sacrifices, lest they are voted out of office.
Democracy, accordingly, is not a natural ally of the tough measures required to combat climate change. And yet populations of democracies will be the first to punish their political leaders when the disastrous effects of climate change start hitting home.
What is required for democracies to become fully engaged in the fight to save the planet is that their citizens should be informed and thoughtful, and willing participants in the required sacrifices. Given the realities, say cynics, is not this a vain hope?
Now, not one of us should or would, I hope, seek to overturn democracy. But every one of us should, I hope, bend our thoughts vigorously to the problem of how to make the saving of our planet consistent with democracy. For surely, democracy and survival do not have to be in conflict. There have to be ways in which democracies can be full, compassionate, sensible partners with each other – indeed with everyone, no matter what the political system – in rescuing the planet from the peril that our historical self-indulgence and exploitation have already placed it in.
To ensure that the aims of the Paris agreement are met, there therefore has to be another effort alongside the drive for far greater sustainability in industrial-commercial activity. This is an overwhelming, unceasing drive to educate and re-educate every single individual on the planet about climate change.'
Plato's old question of whether democracy can supply itself with and live by a principle of self-limitation. It needs to. Unless we have a few environmental philosopher kings spare (as if private interests would let them govern even if there were).
I'll have to hurry up, have a mass of materials on this, on, to give an example, Rousseau's "general will" - the truth cannot just be given, it has to be willed (the democratic resolution of Plato's question).
Some old questions here of long standing in political philosophy - which need to be answered urgently.
Giles Fraser with critical comments ... that I agree with. The wrong sort of voter, there's no such thing
"AC Grayling’s take on the crisis of democracy is not a great book and ordinarily would not deserve much comment. But it is unfortunately symptomatic of the revival of a particular species of highbrow sneering at the politics of ordinary people, at those who do not have a university degree, for instance. And if this is what Grayling’s precious liberalism has become, then he can expect the ordinary people he disparages not to vote for it. No one likes a patronising smartarse. And no one wants a philosopher king."
Or an environmental philosopher king.
Which is why I take a very serious interest in Rousseau and his attempt to democratize Plato - my comment on the "general will" as an apparently paradoxical notion (the will can only be particular, so what was Rousseau up to? Simple - the truth cannot just be given, it has to be willed, and that, through the principle of self-assumed obligation, would resolve Plato's old issues with democracy. (I'm not interested in environmental philosopher kings, I am interested in forming will and character within forms of the common life that give us a life of "environmental philosophy" - that's work to come, but in the meantime see David Lay Williams).
In Bob Inglis’ terms I am an environmental leftist in favour of system-change who also believes in the Love that moves the sun and the other stars – I put the worlds of fact and value together – and that leaves me exposed with respect to divisions of right and left. There are many out there who are not yet on board when it comes to addressing climate change, on account of being sceptical with respect to governmental action and climate solutions. We need to engage them and try to assuage their fears. And that possibility for collaboration and unity is contained in our membership of and participation in the greater love that enfolds, nourishes and sustains us all.
There is an exchange in the film Interstellar that is worth pondering at length:
"Cooper: You're a scientist, Brand.
Brand: So listen to me when I say that love isn't something that we invented. It's... observable, powerful. It has to mean something.
Cooper: Love has meaning, yes. Social utility, social bonding, child rearing...
Brand: We love people who have died. Where's the social utility in that?
Cooper: None.
Brand: Maybe it means something more - something we can't yet understand. Maybe it's some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can't consciously perceive. I'm drawn across the universe to someone I haven't seen in a decade, who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can't understand it. All right Cooper. Yes. The tiniest possibility of seeing Wolf again excites me. That doesn't mean I'm wrong."
Those words have struck a chord with a lot of people, and these words in particular bear repetition: "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that ..."
I say we should. That’s the ‘universal love’ that moves the world, and moves men and women from within; that's the love that is not invented, but invents, as the ‘creating spirit.’ That’s my view, set out at length in other places. I shall simply refer readers to my love of Dante, who affirmed the greater love that moves the sun and the other stars. Here is my Dante's Enamoured Mind
but my desire and will were moved already—
like a wheel revolving uniformly—
by the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.
Dante, Paradiso. 33.143-45
Emphasize that word 'other', emphasize the multiplicity and diversity of the universe, of all the stars together. I emphasize continually Dante's vision of the world as one, in union, diverse voices singing together in harmony, in the sweet symphony of Paradise. I stand by that vision. But what is inspiring about that vision, what enamors Dante, is not the Oneness, but the multiplicity and diversity that the One embraces and unifies. Dante's 'enamoured mind' is set on seeing and knowing and loving that variety of life, that 'otherness' that is brilliantly present in the Comedy's last line - a line that combines the oneness of the Sun with the multiplicity of the stars. And God is the love that moves the sun and the other stars: “l’amor che move ’l sole el’altre stelle.” Dante testifies to his belief in God as the transcendent One, but in this final line of the Comedy, the most beautiful line of 'the world's greatest poem,' Dante combines the One and the Many. The poem ends with the word 'stelle,' 'stars', the universe in its plurality, its many-sided 'otherness', altre, within a transcendent 'oneness.' Dante's oneness as a Greater Love indelibly constituted by multiplicity, difference, and sheer otherness, as expressed in the words “altre stelle”— a diversity that shines all the more brilliantly in light of the oneness of God's Sun.
That's the transcendent Love that the folk in Interstellar are groping vaguely towards, the Love that transcends time and space, and which endures all, and embraces all. We can’t prove it, we can’t supply evidence for it, we can’t demonstrate it, we may very well never understand it, not fully – but ‘maybe we should trust that.’
Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son ...
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,
Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,
And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith
She reels not in the storm of warring words,
She brightens at the clash of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’,
She sees the Best that glimmers thro’ the Worst,
She feels the Sun is hid but for a night,
She spies the summer thro’ the winter bud,
She tastes the fruit before the blossom falls,
She hears the lark within the songless egg,
She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!
Alfred, Lord Tennyson, The Ancient Sage
And the moral is this - 'oneness' is a spiritual quality, not temporal, not political, not institutional, not something we should aim for in politics. The great danger in politics is to see one part, usually our part, the part we agree with and support, and see it as the whole, thereby suppressing otherness. Politics, like the universe moved by Love, flourishes only in its multiplicity and diversity, and it is in that 'otherness' that 'oneness' shines all the more brilliantly - the one needs the other in order to become what it is. I disagree with Bob Inglis' politics and with his recommendations for climate action, because I think the situation is so dire as to require a system-wide change. Our job is to proceed not by imposing scientific "Truth" or any other grand abstract Truth, but involve people in transitions, in taking ownership of problems and solutions, bringing programmes for action down to human scale and dimensions. And I agree profoundly with Bob Inglis' commitment to a God of Love. My consistent attempts to reunify the worlds of fact and value stem from this commitment. Because, like Bob, 'I’m from a place that believes in the Creator, in order and in purpose. We believe that love underlies it all, even if we’re not always consistent or winsome in expressing it.’ He's right, I'm left, but together 'we believe that love underlies it all.' And that transcendent hope gives us grounds for a politics of unity in diversity and diversity in unity - a oneness that exults in otherness and vice versa.
I'm getting so tired of wild speculation and moralising and preaching to the politically converted, radical stances backed by little but hot air, recriminations, idle threats, the endless writing of our obituaries on the planet, the lot. We need to be clear, concise, to the point, working for collaborative agreements and concerted action, getting the politics into line and creating the political will to buttress governmental action. So many people are sceptical of the politics of climate change. We can treat them as political enemies and fight it out in our trenches. But we learn nothing that way, merely reinforce our ideological prejudices. And get precisely nowhere. Call me naive, but rather than engage in cultural wars and drive cultural wedges that divide people on common problems, we can persuade people at the level of their own principles and values, showing what is needed to live up to them, and giving them the science on climate change. And respond to their criticisms. Who, really, is in favour of overweening government, the rule of bureaucrats and planning agencies, a society of professionals rather than citizens, of conscripts rather than volunteers, of economic systems outside of human scale and control? Whether this abstraction and externality comes in the form of central state planning or ‘free’ markets makes little difference. We need to find commonalities and get agreement and movement. We need to communicate, we need to bring people together, we need to welcome what it is that people have to offer and foster movement based on agreement, involvement and consent.
I count as friends people who are Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour, Greens, Liberals, atheists, theists and apatheists, all religions and none, advocates of geoengineering and nuclear and those who are critical of these things, people who argue for 100% renewable energy, people who say that it is a myth, and a dangerous one that renders the environmental case utopian, people who recommend permaculture and communities of local resilience, those who push for international governmental action, environmental lawyers, conservationists, communists, anarchists, community leaders, designers, engineers, scientists, pop stars, poets, yoga instructors, sex therapists, librarians ... - you name it, I'll have it in my little community, in all varieties and of all persuasions. The secret of keeping such a diverse bunch together is to allow space for expression, and to welcome and value whatever it is that people have to contribute - even when I am sceptical or disagree - and to avoid negation and devaluation, to respect boundaries and differences and check against an encroachment that seeks to stultify and fracture. I rightly call a halt to that activity. I am not prepared to expose friends, colleagues and associates to that kind of abuse. Disagreement is not a problem. It is disagreement that seeks to divide and unravel and block efforts of joint action that is the problem. It takes more than one side to be brave, it takes more than one side to engage in dialogue. A politics of friendship requires that people actually behave as friends.
But be clear as to what this commitment to dialogue means – and be clear as to what it doesn’t mean. Given that the arguments I have made in this post are being read by those involved in climate communication, and are being quoted on their sites, I have a responsibility to add this crucial rider – engagement is possible only with those willing to engage. I am not prepared to lay environmental campaigners vulnerable to the concerted attacks of politically motivated people on account of an ill-guarded commitment to open exchange. There is a public realm for that exchange of views, a world of point-scoring and ‘winning’ debates and ‘owning’ opponents – it’s called politics. Go there and do that, if that is what you enjoy. The engagement and dialogue I am referring to is something entirely different – it involves a commitment to truthseeking. We have to accept that there are people who have very decided views on these matters, and that they are beyond persuasion. They are the people who inhabit the political world, the ideological world of the endless ‘yes-no.’ That’s not engagement, there is no genuine exchange going on there, only a mutual self-cancellation. Being brave does not enjoin us to be foolhardy and jump into the ideological swamp, the very opposite. We need to guard against the hardball politics practised by such people. I have had to cut links with many anarchists and libertarians over the years for their insistence that global warming is ‘made up’ by elites in order to dragoon people into world government. I could go on and on – the religion of climate alarmism as a ruse to raise taxes, socialism, globalism etc etc. We know the keywords and stock phrases of ideological contention, and they betray political ill-intent. Everyone gets two or three goes, but once it is clear that there is only entrenchment, disengage and move on is the advice I give to people. The only thing to remember is that there is an audience of the non-committed who may be party to the exchange, so be mindful of them. The danger of an endless ‘yes-no’ ‘debate’ is that it spreads doubt and confusion, and saps energies. Of course, that is what those playing hardball politics are out to do – as soon as you have identified them, disengage, and do not give them a platform or feed their noise. Move to where positive exchange is possible – which is with most people, certainly most people outside of politics. Engagement is for those prepared to address problems and solutions on their merits, and not for those with set particular political platforms to advance or defend. When encountering the latter, we are completely entitled to disengage. We are not beholden to respond to the bogus charges of politically motivated people who are intent to obstruct, distort, deceive and destroy. And that means no feckless argument and debate.
Before the charge of hypocrisy is leveled here, be clear that I am not advancing the familiar liberal argument in which all parties sit around a table and debate with each other and matters are decided by sweet reason. You can go and take your chances in the political world for that, feel free. And I am not laying myself open to the mugging that such sweet liberals invite on account of holding to principles that are all too easily taken advantage of by aggressive players of the political game. I don't need to stand by liberal principles that are all too easily hijacked by free riders to become instruments of domination, deception and distortion. Aristotle made the necessary distinctions here when it came to understandings of freedom: Liberty, they say, when they mean licence. I don't give free riders licence. I don’t make my stand on free speech. You have a voice, use it, I don’t need any principle, law or government for that. John Ruskin puts my view rather bluntly: ‘Your voices are not worth a rat's squeak . . . till you have some ideas to utter with them.’ There is no obligation on us to suffer the constant objection of those with no ideas to offer of their own. Make sure you have some ideas and have something to offer before you go prattling on about free speech, usually in defence of some piece of errant bigoted drivel that this world needs less of. Rather than free speech, I place the emphasis on a strong argument, and you can make that with or without the grace of government. I just don't believe that the force of the better argument will always prevail in debate, I'm too steeped in history to believe that fantasy. Too often, debate is merely the exchange and reinforcement of strongly held positions and prejudices. You learn nothing and change nothing that way, only waste your energies and remain in your trenches. Being brave is not about being politically naive, and playing into the hands of aggressive opponents who are quite prepared to hoist liberalism by its own petard. And to be fair to the classic liberals such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, none of them were naive enough to leave liberalism defenceless against those who would abuse free speech for political ends. Liberalism was much more robust than this, and the sight of political groups exploiting liberal principles to negate liberal values in politics is a pathetic spectacle. Of course, Christian Socialists such as R.H. Tawney had identified the vulnerabilities of liberalism here a long time ago: 'Freedom for the pike is death to the minnow.' I don't allow such people such licence. There is no end of politics or free speech here, that realm will carry on in its own way. Engagement and dialogue refers to an exchange of ideas in a process of mutual learning – and learning, as it was dinned into my head during teacher training, refers to a change of behaviour. There has to be commitment and movement on both sides. With respect to climate change, the idea of engaging in ‘debate’ over the climate problem is anachronistic, the issue has moved well beyond this stage. Those in denial of the crisis in the climate system - and the wealth of evidence to that effect – are beyond reach and, frankly, irrelevant and can be ignored. We do not need all people to be persuaded for there to be movement, only significant numbers. The real area of controversy lies in the field of climate solutions. And here there is need for extensive engagement. Because there is no direct relation between the ‘is’ of climate crisis as presented through climate science and the ‘ought-to-be’ of climate solutions in politics and ethics. The latter is a question of a way of life, and that is not an issue that can be resolved technocratically and governmentally by elites and professionals and experts – it is an issue that can only be settled democratically with consent, through deliberation. And that will involve ‘ownership’ of solutions in such a way that brings environmental – and social – crisis close to home and puts it in the hands of people in their communities. Most people in the world have no political axes to grind. They are the people to address. And, free of political and ideological controversies, such people are able and willing to act. I am proud to have friends whose role is to create community capacities enabling people to take solutions into their own hands in their communities. They put the idle debaters to shame. I work with the former, I have no time for the latter.
Not twenty miles from where I live is the village of Ashton Hayes, Cheshire. This village is a close knit community that is aiming to become England’s first carbon neutral community. ‘We started our journey in January 2006 and since then we have already cut our carbon dioxide emissions significantly - by working together, sharing ideas and through behavioural change. We now have our community owned renewable energy company.’
Explore the website and see how everyone in the community is involved in transitioning, see how a participatory community has been built, and how putting climate solutions in people’s hands has inspired and sustained movement on the ground. THAT is engagement, an engagement not just with people but with the environment.
Whilst some want to carry on ‘debating’ the science climate change, people like this get on with the job at hand and act. It is not climate change that needs debating, science carries on dealing with the facts; it’s how we address climate change as a community that needs to be debated. That’s what politics is about. I want doers and time-users, not idlers and time-wasters. There is an alternative institutions requirement in all of this. If you counter and check a point, you need to put up something better, something that addresses the problem at issue. If you don’t do that, then you are merely obstructing. I don’t care for debating games and place no store in the so-called skills and techniques of sophists. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon: you might make all the best moves but the pigeon just messes all over the table and struts away like he won the debate! Not with me. Free speech is always for the other person, this is true and is not being denied. But this is not a free speech argument, and people are free to say what they like in their own time and on their own space – not mine, and not yours. I don’t allow an encroachment that is designed to break up agreement, confuse rather than clarify, sap energies and prevent movement. Those who do this do so knowingly, they are intent on weighing you down with pressure. Take what people have to offer, and once they stop offering pull clear of them. Because they will become a weight that drags you back and pulls you down. In a public space, you counter and check, respond with fact, reason and logic, and then, if there is no progress from there, you have to move on. Remember that in public, there is an audience to reach outside of the main protagonists. Make sure you address the points at issue, and support your reasoning with argument and evidence, and give those watching something to ‘take home’ with them. Once you are involved in a repetitive cycle of claim and counter-claim, or your points are not being countered, merely ignored or distorted, evaded by the introduction of irrelevant issues, then disengage. Engage with those willing and able to engage, who see the point, address it and stick to it; disengage from those who have no such intent. Time is of the essence. Use your time well, and do not dissipate energies in sterile channels. Engagement is not idle debate and politicking over entrenched positions; it is a genuine exchange of views, a dialogue, and not point scoring designed to check and undermine. In dialogue, both sides bring something to the table and are prepared to offer it. Those who merely negate, obfuscate and obstruct are not engaging, they are involved in a wrecking operation designed to drain energies, confuse issues, spread doubt and waste time.
For health reasons I have had to impose this rule on myself – no feckless argument and debate, only a genuine exchange in which all parties have something to offer. But I would offer this as a rule for others to follow. We know that there are people out there who are organised and well-resourced who exploit free speech in order to encroach upon the time and space of those they identify as political enemies – it is done not in the interests of truthseeking, but to obstruct. These people are on a seek and destroy mission, taking the teeth out of political challenges so as to preserve existing power relations intact. I have no truck with them.
Know your enemy. Their claims with regard to debate, free speech and mutual respect are bogus, and we should know it, and not let adherence to liberal principles render us politically lame. Such people use and abuse liberal principles in order to advance illiberal arguments. And then charge liberals with hypocrisy when they disengage. Actually, no: disengagement is perfectly justified with respect to those who deliberately and systematically negate, obfuscate and obstruct.
Engage with those who are responsive to reason, fact and logic - and I mean responsive, which is very, very different from using reason, fact and logic as tools and instruments of political and ideological war - those who can enter into dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect, who see the point being debated, stick to that point, who can make a coherent argument – not an assertion – and who show that they know the argument of their opponents (and don’t resort to caricature, for instance); disengage from those who abuse that platform by means of negation, diversion and obfuscation – those who contrive controversies about side-issues, who introduce extraneous information to divert from the problem at issue, set up strawmen to knock down, conflate distinct conceptual categories and make category mistakes in order to create irrelevant controversy and spread confusion so as to utterly drown the point at issue in noise. Their tactic is to kill public deliberation on issues they wish to preserve from critical scrutiny, public contest, political intervention and alteration.
An appeal to the common good is not an invitation to political naivety. It's not about letting your guard down. We are aware of the tricks of the trade employed by the ‘merchants of doubt;’ we know their modus operandi, and can easily identify the stock arguments they use in order to counter and check those whom they target as political enemies. These are the people of licence identified by Aristotle. They are free riders on free speech and use public platforms to hijack dialogue in order to shut it down and stop questions dangerous to those in power from being raised. They harangue and harass opponents, they stymie, stifle and ultimately suppress communication; they detract and drain energies and make no positive contribution. I know people who are trained in the field of design, and they have little time for politics. They see it as a waste of energy better channelled elsewhere. And the first hint of trouble, they remove the source of the problem. I stand by politics and ethics as the field of practical reason. And debate and exchange of views is the very stuff of that field. That’s the meaning space in which different people come together to work out how to live together. That’s what politics is about and we lose the sense of doing politics well at our peril. But I maintain a coalition of the willing, and have no time for the unwilling. These people clog the channels of communication, and do so deliberately and systematically. They are a virus in the system, say the designers who are ruthless in removing them. I’m not so ruthless. Politics is about more than systems and engineering. But I want a politics worthy of the name – the creative self-actualisation of those who are interested in public affairs. Dialogue is a two way process; when nothing comes back but negation, then it is no longer dialogue, and engagement can legitimately be ended. Being brave and engaging those who think differently does not mean being naïve and flaccid in face of those who exploit the principle of free speech in order to drown voices they don’t want to hear.
Such, I hear my friends lament, is politics, and it is not a logical world at all, a world where the force of the best argument wins; it is an ideological world based on an endless ‘yes-no’ cycle which has no means of resolution in its own terms. An endless struggle. What standard do we have to determine who is genuine in entering dialogue, and who is not? Isn’t it the whole point of the political realm to be free and open and make spaces available for alternative platforms? Yes. And with repeated exchanges, you soon learn to tell the difference between the pragmatists - those responsive to argument - and the ideologues - those with a particular cause to advance (and they are to be found on all sides, you can always spot them, they are the ones full of certainties - and I am indeed mindful that this is how those involved in environmental politics look lest it be thought I am aiming my sights at the 'deniers' here). Engage the former, disengage from the latter, let them fight it out in their trenches and reclaim public space for those responsive to fact, value, reason and logic. I do that. I know I do that.
As soon as people start to chip away at particular differences, the fabric will start to unravel. So I check that chipping.
So let's be brave, and engage rather than disengage ... if we can. Engagement implies dialogue, and dialogue is a two-way process. We do have to try and persuade those open to persuasion, and we have the combination of reason, evidence and ethics to do that.
So it is time to be brave and live with difference, run with different viewpoints ... be diplomatic but remain politically savvy ... guard against acidic forces that are corrosive of delicate balances and connections. We can divide the world up into friend and foe and engage in the endless cycle of assertion and counter-assertion, and merely cancel each other out. Or we can work together in love and mutual respect in search of solutions that include and benefit each and all. There has to be movement on all sides, a genuine engagement on issues, not some contrived debate designed to unravel unity and plunge us into that destructive cycle of the endless 'yes-no.'
Such is my view of politics. I repeat: the large-scale ambitious projects of environmental action that we require will only succeed if they are grounded in small-scale practical reasoning, community relations and love of place. I suspect those who are sceptical of climate politics are fearful of abstraction most of all. So we need to bring politics back to human scale and proportions. And set that politics within the more-than-human world that enfolds and sustains us - a biospheric politics that really does unite us in a commonwealth of life. That, to me, is to recover the true spirit of politics as a dimension of public life. And that, for me, is the way to bring the political and the spiritual together in a world that respects both fact and value, and embeds them in the form and forms of the common life.
So I shall finish by once more praising the sentiments expressed by Arnold Chan in his final speech, delivered in the Canadian House of Commons shortly before his death: "it is up to us to be braver, to go beyond our comfort zones and engage with people of other backgrounds, to diversify and broaden our relationships, and to seek the betterment of all. We have to take a chance, to engage and to participate." I’ve done this and shall continue to do this. I think most people involved in climate communication have done this. And have been met with all manner of abuse for their troubles. It’s not an open invitation to people of political ill-will. So I have to add a crucial rider - because there are, without any shadow of a doubt, politically motivated people out there who hijack the liberal principles of free speech and open debate in order to suppress and stymie liberal values. I call them "No-No's" - people who “negate, obfuscate, nullify and obstruct,” and thereby waste precious time and energy in feckless argument. They are a definite “No-No” and not worth wasting breath on. I now disengage quickly, without apologies and without guilt. Arnold Chan's words are inspiring, but we need to be politically savvy with those playing hardball politics on this - and who are architects of a systematic environmental destruction. I don't throw words like "evil" around lightly, but these people engage in this destruction knowingly, for their own private gain. Dante reserves the lowest places in the Inferno for such people. I used to be conflicted about disengaging, but I am no longer prepared to present myself as a target for these characters, or expose my friends to their harassment either. And I don’t suffer their charges of hypocrisy either. It is not free speech that concerns me in an argument, it is the commitment to the true and the good – the quality of the argument.
I shall close with this article. It is a long read but well worth it. It exposes what is going on with this phoney ‘debate’ between the reactionary right and liberals.
Final Fantasy: Neoreactionary politics and the liberal imagination I've done with being ‘brave’ and engaging with certain kind of people whose views on climate change can be most diplomatically expressed as ‘contrary.’ Having experienced 'debate' with right wing reactionaries who were more interested in 'scoring' points, 'winning' arguments and 'owning' people they identify as political enemies through their ‘debate skills’ – oblivious to the utter stupidity of their ‘arguments’ - there is a need to be politically savvy and not open yourself to a mugging on account of being beholden to liberal principles. You spend so long debating free speech that there’s no time left for any substantial argument you have to offer. These characters hijack liberal principles of free speech and debate to do everything they can to negate liberal values – and when, patience finally exhausted and good will battered and abused, you disengage, you are accused of being a hypocrite or, worse, a leftist who can’t defend your views rationally, a tyrant who wants to impose your views. It's a game they play with liberals, and it’s consuming public space with its inanity. It is a systematically destructive politics designed to sterilize the political realm. I've seen these characters do it with friends on social media. They are still doing it. They’ve done it with me. The solution is easy - stop playing the game.
‘neoreaction is trying to be something like “The Matrix and Politics.” The appeal is primal: like Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” which imagines the ordinary condition of human life—life, that is, without philosophy—as that of men who sit in darkness, chained together and enthralled by a shadow-play projected on the wall in front of them, The Matrix is a fiction that promises to lead us to reality, life unleashed from all arbitrary, social confines. The exquisite tortures of the red pill are supposed to lead us to a better world; with the right political theory, politics can finally fulfill its promise and get rid of itself. “We can hope to escape from history,” Yarvin argues, by coming to “understand how completely we’re still inside it.”
But this escape route from history, or fantasy, leads in a loop. Neoreaction borrows its “realist” politics from a fictional film, and sustains it through a thriving online subculture, sparking with arcane references and “meme magic.” What’s fascinating is that people love the movie. The “autistic nerds” and failsons, sitting in their man caves or their parents’ basements, dream of a world realer than their own: primal and gooey-thick, the real depth behind the flat image. But it is Neo who wakes up into this world; and Neo exists in our imagination, his image on our screens. If we wonder at the rise of the alt right—at the fact that the ideology most capable of galvanizing political passions is the one that promises to overcome politics once and for all—we should notice that their fantasies in fact look a lot like our reality. Man caves exist, and they shape our world; the neoreactionary is not the only one who lives in their shadows.’
Be brave. But don’t be stupid. And get out of phony ‘debates’ and phony ‘politics’, a mere shadow-boxing between enemies, neither of whom have a true grasp of reality, but just talk past it, and past each other, in an endless 'yes-no.' That's good for those seeking to preserve prevailing power relations from political controversy, challenge and change. They give us not a true politics, but a politics under the sway of money and power. It's death for those who see politics as the means by which we come together to decide how we are to live well together. Let's be brave and call these people for what they are, expose them or what they are, and clear them out of politics. Now that would be to recover the worth and dignity of politics as a realm based on the open and free exchange of views, in which it is the force of the better argument that counts.