Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

People & Ideas

Nov 16, 2009

Hamilton: Denying the coming climate holocaust

Which is morally worse: Holocaust denial or climate change scepticism? It sounds like a no-brainer, but the real-life consequences of climate sceptics succeeding may far outweigh those of Holocaust denialists.

Climate sceptics resent being called deniers because of the odium associated with Holocaust revisionism.

Even critics of the sceptics are careful to distance themselves from the implication that they are comparing climate denialism with Holocaust denialism for fear of being seen to trivialise the Holocaust by suggesting some sort of moral equivalence.

Judgments about moral equivalence depend on the ethical standpoint one adopts.

For consequentialists the morality of an action is judged by its outcomes. For those who adopt this ethical standpoint, any assessment of the consequences of the two forms of truth-rejection would conclude that climate deniers deserve greater moral censure than Holocaust deniers because their activities are more dangerous.

If the David Irvings of the world were to succeed, and the public rejected the mountain of evidence for the Holocaust, then the consequences would be a rewriting of history and a probable increase in anti-Semitism.

If the climate deniers were to succeed, and stopped the world responding to the mountain of evidence for human-induced global warming, then hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change.

They will die from famine, flood and disease caused by our unwillingness to act. The Stern report provides some sobering estimates: an additional 30-200 million people at risk of hunger with warming of only 2-3°C; an additional 250-500 million at risk if temperatures rise above 3°C; some 70-80 million more Africans exposed to malaria; and an additional 1.5 billion exposed to dengue fever.

Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.

It is a ghastly calculus, yet it is worth making because the hundreds of millions of dead are not abstractions, mere chimera until they happen. We know with a high degree of certainty that if we do nothing they will die.

But not everyone adopts a consequentialist ethic. An alternative ethical stance is to judge climate deniers not by the effects of what they do but by the rightness of their activities (a so-called duty ethic) or by their character and motives (a virtue ethic).

From a duty ethic position, the moral obligation climate deniers are violating is to the truth. Here there is a moral difference between denying the commission of a great crime, for which there are whole libraries of documentation, and rejecting the overwhelming evidence from science in which uncertainties nevertheless persist. This suggests that climate deniers are less culpable.

From a virtue ethic standpoint, moral culpability depends on motives. Attempting in good faith to uncover the facts is a good thing, which is why we regard genuine scepticism as healthy. Denialism is not scepticism but a refusal to accept the facts, the rejection of all of the evidence.

We think of Holocaust deniers as being immoral because we suspect them of being motivated by anti-Semitism or a desire for political advancement through stirring up racial hatred.

We think of climate deniers as being immoral because we suspect them of being motivated, not by truth-seeking, but by political goals, a desire for funds from fossil-fuel companies or personal aggrandisement.

Those who adopt a duty or virtue ethic would probably feel more personal antipathy towards a David Irving than towards an Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt. There is something especially repugnant, even evil, about Holocaust denial. Denying or covering up a monstrous crime makes Holocaust deniers somehow complicit in it.

Better to have your daughter marry a climate sceptic, who is perhaps motivated by contrarianism, foolishness or self-importance rather than wickedness.

If, like me, you adopt a virtue or duty ethic, but one tempered by consideration of the consequences of an act, climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.

However, as the casualties from a warming world mount over the next decades, the denialism of those who continue to reject the scientific evidence will come to be seen as more and more iniquitous. So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.

Clive Hamilton is the Greens candidate in the Higgins by-election.

Advertisement

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

117 comments

Leave a comment

117 thoughts on “Hamilton: Denying the coming climate holocaust

  1. meski

    … Just wait til they stop calling sceptics deniers, and start calling them heretics, and then have them ‘educated’ to renounce their positions.

  2. meski

    And anyone who calls sceptics deniers, has in my opinion, lost the argument. See Godwin’s law.

  3. Sean

    Clive appears to be slowly going mad. Not good for a standing candidate in the next by-election.

    Venice is still above water. It is going under a bit, mainly due to sinking on its wooden piles and mud foundations as fresh water has been pumped out from the water table underneath for town water supply. Venice is one of my litmus tests. The seas may be rising at a near infinitesimal rate, perhaps 1mm a year. Perhaps. If the seas go up 20cm in 20 years, I will start to worry. Plenty of time to put the brakes on ‘carbon polluters’, although it is important to be developing alternative forms of energy and industry. I’m porsonally looking forward to ‘oilgae’ production kicking in, as it is a prolific source of hydrocatrbons, environmentally friendly, can serve to bio-sequestrate coal burning GHGs for a period, and is otherwise effectively carbon neutral — like a ‘living fossil’ fuel producer.

  4. Dikkii Webb

    The appeal to Godwin’s Law is an utterly irrelevant red herring. Calling a climate change denier a skeptic is like calling a creationist an “evolution skeptic”. In other words, it’s completely ridiculous.

  5. meski

    My reasoning follows the “climate denier is like a holocaust denier” -> calling someone a holocaust denier is akin to calling them a N*zi -> and that’s where the Godwin invocation came from. 🙂

  6. Dikkii Webb

    It’s not really good enough though is it Meski? The English language is the poorer when people try to ring-fence terms like this in order to quarantine themselves from criticism, I think. Not aimed at you specifically, there are hundreds in politics and the media invoking Godwin in order to stave off wingnut accusations.

  7. Roger Clifton

    Wicked people could be reminded of the consequences of willful blindness.

    After the liberation of Paris, some thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people were tried and executed for having continued with business as usual while the French world was in peril. Many more were humiliated and their careers destroyed. Like the followers of today’s climate deniers, they pleaded that had seen no evidence of evil and that they were just obeying their employers.

    However they were executed on the basis that they should have known better.

    …You’ll get yours, Jimmy!

  8. jon Fairall

    Clive, you missed the really culpable. What about the ‘sceptic’ who actually accepts the science, but then goes on to calculate that his current gain is worth more to him than the future pain of his children. I don’t think this is an insignificant point; it can’t be a coincidence that so many climate ‘sceptics’ are elderly white males doing very nicely out of our current economy.

  9. Most Peculiar Mama

    Yet another stream of conscious rant this time punctuated by invoking a most foul parallel.

    Clive’s desperate grasp for relevancy is palpable.

    Being so far on the fringes of any sensible debate on this subject means Hamilton has little of value to contribute.

    The good folk of Higgins deserve to know what a bonafide lunatic sounds like and this execrable piece of garbage is just the right manifesto for a by-election flyer.

    See you on December 5.

  10. James Anderson

    Can we please have a rest from Hamilton in Crikey? Apart from all the tendentious crap, it is wicked to invoke the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust as he does.

Leave a comment

Advertisement

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.