Mark Lynas has very publicly broken ranks with many in the green movement by supporting the use of nuclear power and GM crops, while continuing to subscribe to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Such independence of mind is to be commended.
Rules of engagement
Mark Lynas, author of ‘Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet’, has now published an interesting new book ‘The God Species: How the Planet can survive the Age of Humans’. At first glance, this is the sort of book you would expect to get a warm welcome from environmentalists and be roundly condemned by their intellectual opponents. But this is not really so; Lynas has written something which will infuriate many environmentalists while getting a cautious welcome from some who are naturally sceptical of tales of doom and destruction.
The interesting thing is that he is showing independence of mind. Famously, Bjorn Lomborg set out to assemble the quantitative evidence to back up the main claims of the environmentalist movement and ended up writing ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’, a heresy for which he has never been forgiven. Although Mark Lynas would probably not be comfortable with the parallel (he infamously once hit him with a custard pie in protest at his critical views on environmental issues) he is in fact following Lomborg’s footsteps. Some greens may now think he deserves similar treatment.
His first act of apostasy was to look at the evidence on genetically modified crops and conclude that there was little to be concerned about. He has this week written an op-ed for the Times (To abolish starvation Africa needs GM crops) in which he says ‘As a former anti-GM campaigner, I used to join “decontamination” actions in the middle of the night, trampling and slashing down crop trials in the UK in the late 1990s. Looking back, I realise I was caught up in something more resembling anti-scientific mass hysteria rather than any rational response to a new technology.’ Congratulations for not continuing with blind prejudice.
Similarly, Mark Lynas has publicly supported nuclear power as an essential way to generate low-carbon energy. This he does because he continues to subscribe to the mainstream view that it is carbon dioxide emissions which are driving potentially dangerous global warming. Another high-profile environmentalist who has come to the same conclusion is James Lovelock.
Lynas very publicly broke ranks when he appeared in the Channel 4 documentary What the Green Movement Got Wrong in late 2010, alongside Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace and now one of their most prominent critics) and Stewart Brand (founder and president of the Whole Earth Catalogue). Their essential message was that the green movement had become too fond of turning issues into a choice between black and white and was unprepared to look at things in a more balanced and rational way. In their collective view, technologies such as nuclear power generation and genetic engineering could be part of the solution to major problems rather than the dangerous tools of evil capitalists.
I watched the programme when it was originally shown and thought it was a well-made attempt to put over a point of view which is not often heard, that ‘green’ and ‘natural’ are not always completely right and ‘science’ and ‘business’ not always irretrievably bad. Perhaps not surprisingly, the programme was controversial and attracted some strong views from both sides of the argument, although with a bias towards the critical. For example, here are some verbatim quotes from comments left on the website:
‘What a load of anti environmental propaganda... I think certain multinational GM and nuclear corporations may have had an interest in the production of this material. I find this documentary highly disturbing after devoting 7 years of my life in college to Environmental Science I must advise anyone watching this documentary that the information within is highly bias and one sided.’
‘The only way foward for world agriculture is to embrace eco-technology, in particular the work of Viktor Schauberger. By understanding the true workings of nature, we can create an abundance of the highest quality food, all the time allowing the land in which it is grown to thrive and reach is maximum level of fertility, which is only possible through allowing the natural processes to happen...’
‘...Have we all forgot what damage GM can do to the environment associated with growing these crops? The balance of nature will be thrown and perhaps cause irreversible damage....’
‘...Putting the worlds food crops into the hands of a tiny number of corporations who are reducing the gene bank to an absolute minimum is a sure recipe for world starvation.’
Some strong views from a number of people whose minds are clearly made up. Campaigning environmentalist organisations continue to be in tune emotionally with many people, particularly (but by no means exclusively) the young and idealistic. Modern culture reinforces this: it is unusual to find popular musicians or actors who do not espouse the green cause in some way. The Greenpeace banners at Glastonbury are part of the furniture, whereas corporate sponsorship would doubtlessly cause outrage.
Coming back to Mark Lynas, he sums up the problem for many greens very well: 'Being an environmentalist was part of my identity and most of my friends were environmentalists. We were involved in the whole movement together. It took me years to actually begin to question those core, cherished beliefs. It was so challenging it was almost like going over to the dark side. It was a like a horrible dark secret you couldn't share with anyone.'
That really encapsulates the problem: if you identify with a particular movement, you are expected to share its main beliefs and questioning these is simply not welcome. Opponents are not deemed worthy of proper debate, and environmentalists who dissent on particular issues, such as Lomborg and Lynas, are regarded as traitors and treated as such (or occasionally, as suffering from some kind of delusion). Not that this is confined to the greens; identification with a particular cause or belief often means indulging in groupthink to fit in.
One of the outcomes is that it can be very difficult to engage properly with people whose views you oppose. We know that rational argument rarely changes people’s minds if they have an established strong view, but it is always good to encourage debate in which the two sides at least listen to the arguments. Too often, the views of others are not just rubbished, but their personal credibility is attacked. Perhaps the confrontational style of modern media is partly to blame, but there does seem to be an aspect of human nature which many people struggle to control (if they try at all).
It is natural that people form opinions and argue with those who disagree with them. But the fact that people can change their minds on contentious issues shows that all is not necessarily black and white. Life would be a whole lot more civilised if we agreed at least to treat the views of others as worthy of thought rather than beneath contempt. So perhaps we should all consider adopting two primary rules of engagement:
1. Never make ad hominem attacks. This is the surest way to lose your own credibility in the eyes of any objective observer.
2. Always try to see the positive side of an opposing argument before answering. Showing respect, even if you fundamentally disagree, can never do any harm.
Copyright Cambridge Network 2011.
