Philip Stott: Global Warming: the Death of a Grand Narrative

Grand narratives - those overarching, dominant systems of socio-political thought so beloved of post-modernists - come and go. Some, such as major religions, can persist, through shape-shifting, for millennia; others last for centuries, while most survive for mere decades.

The death of a grand narrative is often protracted and largely unnoticed, until, one day, its metalanguage, its corpus of words of magic, its ‘points de capiton’, to use the phrase proposed by the Freudian psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan (1901 – 1981), which for so long have kept people sub-consciously in its thrall, eventually lose all of their power and meaning, and prove no longer relevant to the lives of the majority. Such is the fate of mainstream Christianity in Britain today. For other grand narratives, by contrast, the collapse may be unexpectedly swift and dramatic, as with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The work of the ‘mauerspechte’ can thus take centuries, but it may also be accomplished within days or months.

Such is the current fate of global warming, the grand narrative that human greed and profligacy are changing the world’s climate apocalyptically, a sin that can only be appeased through public confession and self-sacrifice to the Goddess, Gaia. Since the farcical conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference last December, it has been fascinating, as an independent academic, to witness the classical collapse of this grand narrative, as if social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. From Australia to the US, both the public and politicians are rowing back from the dangerous weir of trying to constrain economic growth in the name of achieving a utopian, low-carbon economy. The pursuit of carbon footprints is proving a ‘yomp’ too far.

Of course, the metalanguage of global warming continues to be employed by certain politicians, including the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, by some of the media, including parts of the BBC, and by green activists, but one can already sense the power of its ‘points de capiton’ draining away daily. ‘Sustainability’ is becoming an increasingly unsustainable concept. Indeed, newspapers like The Times, which rather belatedly jumped onto the global warming bandwagon, have had to resort to reheating old stories of fossil-fuel funding and other wearied tropes, even putting these bizarrely on the front page in a pathetic bid to revive flagging interest. More characteristically, however, there are now an increasing number of days when none of global warming’s words of power even feature in the press or over the airwaves, and, when they do, they are often employed mechanically, without thought, conviction, or meaning.

Meanwhile, as ever, protean capitalism remains piously pragmatic, employing the old language where it can glean money thereby, as with wind farms and food miles, while already adjusting to whatever might come next. Slowly, but inexorably, a new set of metalanguages is arising, relating to food security, energy security, human genetic choices, but above all to adaptation and to flexibility in the face of normal change.

To understand a little of what is happening to the global warming grand narrative, we should turn to psychological theory, to what is generally known as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This was first developed by the humanistic psychologist, Abraham Maslow, in his 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motiviation, and fully expounded later in his 1954 book, Motivation and Personality.

Basically, Maslow proposes a hierarchy of five levels of basic human needs. Beyond these needs, higher levels of need exist. These include needs for understanding, aesthetic appreciation, and purely spiritual needs. In the levels of the five basic needs, the person does not feel the second need until the demands of the first have been satisfied, nor the third until the second has been satisfied, and so on. His hierarchic theory is often represented as a pyramid, with the larger, lower levels representing the lower needs, and the upper point representing the need for self-actualization.

A recent ‘Newsletter’ (‘Only one crisis at a time’, July 23, 2010) from the Scientific Alliance cogently analyses the present situation in Maslowian terms:

“We can also see this partly as another dimension of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As our basic needs are fulfilled and life gets more secure, so we place more emphasis on higher tiers. This rationalises our increasingly rights-based culture and the rise and entrenchment of environmentalism in everyday life. Subsistence farmers or poor labourers have more pressing needs to fulfil. But the obverse of this is that, as short-term, pressing threats are lifted, we have time to focus on longer-term or less urgent ones.

By this reckoning, there would need to be some fairly significant changes for the present obsession with climate catastrophism to be replaced. The economic crisis has already played some part: it is virtually impossible to deliver radical and expensive policies at a time when painful cuts are being made in spending on basics such as welfare and education. A hypothetical contact with an alien civilization could at some stage again shift our focus.

But there is another crisis which is almost upon us. The chances are that energy insecurity will hit us in the next few years. Ignoring the Peak Oil arguments for now, there is a looming gap in electricity generating capacity as ageing coal- and nuclear- powered stations are decommissioned and at least part of the slack is unrealistically expected to be taken up by a large expansion of renewable power generation.”

It appears that, the higher we move up the Maslow pyramid, the greater is our need for theoretical, manufactured, future ‘catastrophes’. ‘Global warming’ thus comprised the classic ‘need’ of the ‘loads-of-money’ generation. But, we are now plunging back to reality, so that we no longer require this particular ‘catastrophe’ for our psychological fulfilment. Of course, new ‘catastrophes’ will surely arise to replace it, and they are already doing so, in the guise of food and energy security, and genetic choices, among many others.

Likewise, climate will continue to change, as it has always done. We must only hope that we have not undermined our ability to adapt to these changes, as and when they arise, and that science has not been too damaged by the Lysenkoistic grand narrative of global warming.

By contrast, I predict that global warming will now suffer a lingering death, as with so many other grand narratives that have gone before it, although there will always be a rump of adepts speaking in its tongues and propounding the faith, especially, I suspect, in the UK and its universities.

Emeritus Professor Philip Stott of the University of London is on the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation.