MYTHS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS

Victor (2011) suggests that the international coordination of global warming is stuck due to the myths reigning over the entire political dialogue. These myths create an impression that the carbon dioxide problem would be easy to solve. Secondly, they claim that if there only were some “political will” or “ambition”, the world could tighten its belt and reach the target. According to Victor, the problem is not the lack

116 Quotation from the Canada Free Press of 5.2. 2007, according to which, Stewart had said this in 1998. Source:

Hulme 2009a:354.

of political will. More likely it is a question that people have a wrong idea about how politics function (Victor 2011:5). It is worth noticing that, unlike Hulme who did not take a stand on the truth value of these myths, Victor clearly uses a critical tone when talking about the myths.

5.1.2.1 Scientist’s myth

The scientist’s myth is linked to the scientific linear model, which I dealt with earlier in this research. It assumes that the scientific research could determine the safe level of global warming. Once scientist has defined it then everyone else in society optimizes to meet that global goal. The truth is that nobody knows how much warming is safe, and what society expects from science is far beyond than any level-headed scientists can actually deliver. Victor emphasises that “safety”

is a product of circumstances and interests not just geophysics. The result of the myths has created an obsession with setting false and unreachable targets. Victor gives as an example a two-degree target, which has become a barometer of the progressing climate negotiations, a sort of benchmark. “Two degrees is attractive because it is a simple number, but it bears no relationship to emission controls that most governments will actually adopt. And it isn’t based on much science either.” (Victor 2011: 5–6)

According to Victor, the fault of the scientific myth is that it creates a false vision for the policy process: one that starts with global goals and works backwards to national efforts. Real policy works in the opposite direction: it starts with what nations are willing and able to implement. Universal treaties with their strict targets are a bad way to get started on serious emission controls, as the global agreements make it easier for governments to hide behind the lowest common denominator.

(Victor 2011:6, 31)

5.1.2.2 Engineer’s myth

Climate policy is also bothered, according to Victor, by an engineer’s myth: people think that when inventors have created cheaper new technologies, these new devices can quickly enter into service. The myth offers delusions of quick and cheap solutions. It also appeals to people because many incorrectly believe that the needed technologies already exist. For example, energy efficiency is widely believed to be a readily available option for making efficient emissions cuts at no cost. According to Victor, a large part of the available energy-saving potential is, in practice, not working, because it hasn’t yet been linked to the practical solutions in companies and households. Technological transformation is a slow process because

it is dependent on so many other things than just the engineering; new business models and industrial practices are needed.

The danger of the engineer’s myth is that it leads towards political targets which are too ambitious and away from the reality, instead of concentrating on testing what really works. (Victor 2011: 7, 31–32)

Victor talks of the engineer’s myth but it is unlikely that an engineer, in particular, would ever fall for it – just as hardly would a scientist err in the scientist’s myth.

Moreover those quarters, which have no touch with technical-economic realities, like humanistic politicians, are apt to do so.

5.1.2.3 Myth of environmental lens

The following myth claims that global warming is an environmental problem. A large number of people, including most policy makers, look at warming through the lens of environmental regulation. According to Victor, the phenomenon worries environmentalists for good reasons but the real reason and at the same time also the key for the solution is rooted in the economy. “Too much greenery is making it hard to focus on the economic causes and consequences of global warming.”

The environmental lens on global warming has also led diplomats to search for the solution in the wrong direction, in environmental diplomacy. Consequently, models have been used as examples for problem solutions, such as the treaties protecting the ozone layer, which do not work well when complex economic systems have to be coordinated. (Victor 2011: 31). According to Victor, more suitable models can be found in the direction of international economic cooperation, such as the WTO or GATT agreement (Victor 2011: 244–245).

Victor’s three myths are a fitting description of the daily work of EU legislators:

it is quite common that we set our targets slightly optimistically trusting that the technological prerequisites already exist, or believing that the available scientific advice is unequivocal. The 2020 renewable energy target is an apt example of the engineer’s myth. At the time of setting the target (2008), the Parliament’s Greens started to speak of “super grids”. A super grid is a new Europe-wide grid, which would be based on high-voltage direct current (HVDC) technology for electric power transition instead of the currently dominant alternating current system.

The development, renewal and strengthening of the network of grids, is, certainly recommendable. Nevertheless, the experts in the field did not share the excitement of the politicians: it was diluted by the information on inadequate technology. It is likely that the remote feasibility and uncertainty were acknowledged at the outset of the idea. Possibly, it was also a political initiative that created the impression of a resolved problem: more new renewable energy targets can be brought to the EU table, “now that the problem of electric power transition has been resolved, too”.

5.1.3 CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTROLLING NATURE The idea of controlling nature has its historic origins and they are essentially connected with scientific and technological development, their interconnection, and the kind of ideology that enabled their development and interaction. At the very centre lies the relationship with nature. This is also a key question for the climate. Therefore, the idea of climate management cannot be separated from the ideological-historical background of controlling nature.

The thought of nature in control is not only connected to the technology, but also to human social and religious activities, especially to magic. (Rapp 1982:71–72;

von Wright 1987:72–73; Ellul 1964:25).

As a cultural phenomenon technology is much older than science; the tendency to make use of tools rather than just use one’s own hands is well known from the early history of mankind. Until the end of the 18th century, the development of technology was slow. It relied on the limited resources of mankind, the terms of the human body and senses. Both problems and solutions were dictated by practical life. Only modern technology brought along future-oriented planning, and here the only limit was the imagination.

The origin of Western science is in ancient Greek traditions. Technology used by the Hellenistic civilisation was originally oriental – not so much in Greek science.

It was characteristic of the Greek way of thinking to distinguish between science and technology. Technical research was considered less necessary in a culture, which admires abstract intellect: the goal of science was contemplation rather than applying it.

It is said that Archimedes destroyed his equipment used to demonstrate his numeric model immediately after the demonstration. As noted by Ellul, although the Greek attitude towards technology demonstrated a perfect capability of self-control, the separation of science from technology was not always absolute as can be discerned from the examples of Plato and Archimedes. The deliberate rejection of technology was an act expressing deep self-domination, goal-recognition, and the clear application of the predominant world view in all fields of life. (Ellul 1964:27–29).

The Ancient Greek way of thinking determined the status and development of technology long into the future. The Greek perception included the idea that man must obey nature. The opposite of this thought is the idea of man controlling nature.

Thus, the Greek understanding of the relationship between man and nature was impossible to combine with technology.

According to von Wright (1987), the Aristotelian doctrine of natural and forced motion was at the foundation of this conception. Three forms of motion – towards the centre, away from it and rotation around it – were the natural motions of objects. Science was not interested in the unnatural, i.e. forced motion generated by means of technology, levers and pulleys. According to the Greek understanding, technology was not based on natural science but rather science dealing with

unnatural phenomena. The world was complete – it just had to be classified. All the way up to Galileo Galilei, this attitude restrained the development of physics, for example.

In Christian ideology, the Greek antithesis of the natural – i.e. the unnatural, was replaced by the natural – supernatural dichotomy. This meant that the focus was now on the supernatural, and nature as an ideal the natural ideal faded in favour of the transcendental reality. Thus, theology became one of the highest sciences.

However, it had a rival – magic or witchcraft. von Wright considered religion the opposite of magic, because it expresses a submission to higher powers. von Wright regarded magic as the closest predecessor to modern technology: both of them aspire to control nature for the sake of human purposes, even though technology is based on science, whereas magic relies on superstition. According to von Wright, science is rationalised, superstition-free magic.

But what then changed in the way of thinking? Instead of the transcendental, the focus was now set on this world, and surprisingly enough, largely as a consequence of the Reformation. Two very significant forces led to the remarkably fast technological development starting from the Age of Enlightenment, i.e. the Reformation and the Renaissance. Alongside these, a new understanding of history, its development, man and his freedoms, emerged. (Schuurman 1977) The Renaissance relied on the idea of human autonomy and domination over creation. It worshipped Antiquity but its idea of nature did not correspond with the ideal nature of Antiquity anymore. The Reformation also emphasised freedom and domination, but only before God, to whom man was accountable for his acts. The Reformation also included the idea that nature was not divine. The legitimacy of science and technology was acknowledged but provided that the acts of God set their norms.

The themes of freedom, responsibility, nature and its control were therefore completely identical during these two eras but they began acquiring a different content. While one of them had an immanent tone, the other one was transcendental.

At the beginning, the influence of the Reformation was stronger until the content and meaning of Renaissance thinking won over it and gave words the tone known by contemporary Western culture. As noted by von Wright (1988), in the long run, the Reformation advanced the secularisation of lifestyles at least as much as it activated religiousness, which had started slackening. Due to Cartesianism, the idea of man as the centre of the universe, gained ground in Western culture. During the Age of Enlightenment, humanism edged out the transcendental elements resulting from the Reformation, even though the concepts still remained. (Schuurman 1977:231).

Thus, the Enlightenment expressed the conclusions of what was already stirring during the Reformation and the Renaissance.

Consequently, people began studying nature mechanically, i.e. as the target of technical manipulation. The natural science-based method was regarded as superior to other scientific methods. Ethical and religious restrictions, which had previously

prohibited the manipulation of nature, vanished from modern science (Schuurman 1977:10–35)

At the start of the Modern Era, science at the pursuit of knowledge made an alliance with tool-developing technology. The British philosopher, Francis Bacon, expressed a technological attitude towards life, which was unknown and only distantly anticipated during Antiquity and the Middle Ages. He led science towards practical results. According to Bacon, scientific knowledge offered people power over nature, made their lives easier and reduced misery (von Wright 1988:76–77).

When the theoretical legitimacy of the Age of Enlightenment started virtually pushing technology forward at full speed, the time was ripe for all these changes.

For a long time, nature has been viewed as a provider of livelihoods, but also as an enemy and a threat. Nature could also let one down, kill or deprive.

As divinity was shrugged off from nature, man could at last start a real battle over nature in order to harness it to serve humankind. Man has to conquer it, take what it did not want to give humankind voluntarily. Now, technology was divine and it opened up new possibilities for humankind.

Hulmes’ description (2009a:343) of climate change-related myths has to be seen against this backdrop. One of these myths is the nostalgia focusing on a lost Eden.

Since the Age of Enlightenment, as humankind set out to conquer nature, the climate was considered one of the last untouched bastions and it should remain outside human interference. If we lost the climate, too, we would lose everything. Our worry about the climate does not only concern surviving new challenges of life but it is also a matter of a great deal of symbolism. Thus, the first myth mentioned by Hulme approaches the concept of controlling nature from a critical angle. Therefore, it is interesting to note that the third myth of the same reference group reveals a totally opposite attitude: an attitude, which Hulme compares with the Tower of Babel. It is an age-old attitude of dealing with controlling nature, which started already with the introduction of technology, magic and then later the Enlightenment. Hulme also acknowledged this irony when he stated that the only difference between historical and contemporary experiments is the steadfast belief: “now we have the wisdom as our guide” – and even this is nothing new (Hulme 2009a:353).

5.2 CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE RISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL