Second Sight

In my first column on climate change I discussed what responsibilities it might impose on us as Christians. The latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), from 2007, claimed that there was a 90 per cent probability that human activity was the main agent. Given the complexity of the factors there is room to question aspects of this assessment but I think it to be prudent to take the most comprehensive and broadly accepted evidence. I am not qualified to judge between the experts.

The first, and rather dramatic, clue is a graph which shows the growth in the greenhouse gases over the last 10,000 years. (Historical measurements are made through the analysis of ice cores.) It shows a nearly horizontal line until about 200 years ago, coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, which led to a sustained, sharp vertical upturn. Carbon dioxide, which is the major element, shows an increase of 35 per cent over pre-industrial levels; it is growing at its fastest recorded rate. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased. Halocarbons, resulting from refrigerators and spray propellants, are a man-made new arrival. Our contribution to this is confirmed by the analyses which show that the major source is the burning of fossil fuels, and that the hotspots are located over the areas of high industrialisation.

There are, of course, factors which alleviate the situation: some result from human activity and some from natural conditions. Aerosols, which are airborne particles from sources such as dust storms, forest fire and volcanoes, help in reflecting sunlight back to source, although the process is not fully understood. Solar energy has made a contribution to warming but the effect is small at around a 10th of the whole. Land management has good and bad effects. Measurements taken in 2005 show that the contribution of human activities to climate change outweigh the other factors by a large margin.

Naturally we should expect to see changes caused by these factors: 11 out the last 12 years up to 2006 have been the warmest since 1850, when good records began. The upwards trend in global temperatures measured over the 20th century is accelerating, and the majority of the increase has occurred over the last 50 years. We now experience fewer frosty days and more warm days and nights. This is further confirmed by tree-ring data: the last warm period, around the end of the first millennium, was some degrees cooler than recent average temperatures.

Spring snow cover, which can have a marked effect on water conservation, had decreased in northern latitudes. The sea absorbs much of the additional heat, leading to natural expansion and rising levels. There have been marked reductions in permafrost and the melting of sea ice in Greenland and the Antarctic. Currently, there is insufficient data to judge whether the rate of rise is accelerating. Again, the graphs covering the last 100 years show a steady, threatening trend.

Water vapour in the atmosphere is largely controlled by temperature, and so this has been increasing. Various areas across the world have become wetter, while others have become drier. Disaster has often been the result.

Forecasting the future is a different problem. The principal method is the use of complex models which attempt to take account of perceived relevant values and their interplay. Educated assumptions often have to be inserted, and necessarily the room for error increases with the length of the period predicted. However, many different scientists applying their own models independently give a useful, if not infallible check. Indeed, the predictions made in the previous IPCC assessment in 2001 needed considerable updating in 2007. Some leading climatologists have recently argued that cyclical changes in atmosphere and ocean currents will actually cool the earth over the next 20 years; this may mask the underlying trend.

Many of the future outcomes are unavoidable because we have yet to undergo the full results of past atmospheric changes. Over the next 20 years various scenarios show that an increase similar to our recent experience will continue. Beyond that, the most likely scenarios suggest increasingly higher temperatures by the end of the century (compared to year 2000), in the order of 2°to 4° C, but could be half as much again. It was estimated that sea levels would rise by 30 to 40 centimetres. And accelerated loss of ice from Greenland and the Antarctic would increase this by up to 20 centimetres. Some more recent studies, which look closely at the possible effects of melting ice, suggest an overall sea level rise of a metre and over. A recent report by the Met Office suggests that these changes could occur within 50 years from now. But many factors, and their interaction, within these projections are not yet well understood, and doubtless they will become more accurate as these aspects are more closely studied.

Naturally, different regions of the earth will be affected in different ways and different levels of severity. In a future column on climate change I will look at how different regions of the world may be affected.

How long will the effects of climate change last? We are certainly talking hundreds of years. Hold on to your seat belts for a long and bumpy ride.

Readers who are familiar with the IPCC assessment, will be aware of the sparseness of my description. But I think it better for us to grasp the overall picture which the assessment paints than to get lost in detail. Many interesting and knowledgeable comments have been made to Climate Change – 1. I hope you will continue your critique and suggestions with this second instalment.

A week ago my old friend Thaïs Downman died. She had suffered for several years from an extremely painful cancer of the spine. Although she had bouts of depression during her illness, she had a great love of life. So much so that, until the last few days, she exchanged the pain from which larger doses of morphine would have spared her for the chance to keep her mind bright and fresh.

A fortnight before her death she wrote a remarkable meditation, which I had the privilege of reading today at her funeral. With her family’s permission I am posting it. I hope you will catch the flavour of a remarkable person

Although a deeply spiritual person, she was not a Catholic. But she taught me more about how someone made in the spirit and likeness of God should die than anyone else I have known. If you find inspiration in her “testament”, tell us on the Blog. I think her devoted family would like to know that her thoughts have been valuable to other people.

O     O     O

The watery autumn sun streams through an open window across the belly of the old woman; she is half asleep and half awake, alive but dying. On the floor lies the little toddler asleep in a rug and the baby sucks milkily. The old man sips his tea while his grandson offers cakes and honey. The simple home is calm and busy; an older woman cooks for all, the floor still wet from the toddler playing at washing up the wooden bowl. It could be any time, any century.

The door bell rings – a neighbour’s child – the visit to the old woman made easy by coming in to discuss school.

A hundred miles away a young girl starts university, fearful, excited, missing her parents yet enveloped by cousins who bustle around with trivia and drive out the cold feet of Fresher’s week. In a far off land her parents worry, knowing their precious charge has left home for good. They are cousins of the old woman – family thrown apart by war, but held together by letters and by that family bond that comes of joint suffering and managing to survive. And as she faces the end of her life she draws comfort from the support the young give each other through the bonds of family.

It was not last century; it is now in this last weekend of September. The old woman’s pain has gone because of morphine. She smells sweet, not musty, well tended because carers attend to all intimate care. A week ago she wanted to die, exhausted by her existence that seemed to become hollow and futile, fearful of disrupting lives of those she loves so dearly. And so her wish to die resurfaced; yet her ability to live resurfaced too.

I am that old woman, 88 and at the end of my life. In bed and unable to do, but able to receive – and find an unexpected serenity in receiving. The family are more important than anything – one cannot teach this sort of love in schools, cannot legislate for dying; I am too weary to cope with regulations. It is only being surrounded by those that love each other that can sustain life itself.

Thaïs Downman 28 /09 /2009

It has been known for a long time that we are strongly influenced to conform to the group to which we belong. Early experiments showed that, even in a small group, an individual will abandon his natural, and - as it happens - correct judgment in the face of opposition from others. This has been tested under many different circumstances, and more recent studies, involving brain scans, have suggested the mechanism. It appears that when we act against group consensus the brain gives an error signal to whip us back into line. That is, we are naturally wired to learn from the judgment of the group.

Why are so many decent people quite content to see babies killed in the womb? The law signifies what is acceptable in our society, and this is reinforced by growing public opinion. Our brains follow suit and the result is grotesque. It is no surprise that the word “moral” is rooted etymologically in the concept of “customs”.

Of course customs and culture are inevitable and necessary. For the most part we need to conform to our own culture so that society can continue comfortably, minimising conflict and promoting mutual understanding. But the dangers are apparent. The growth in Germany of belief in the superiority of Aryan culture occurred at great speed and spread comprehensively throughout society. There were even Aryan mathematics and Aryan science. Young Germans today find it hard to believe how it happened, little realising that, in the same circumstances, most of them would have taken on the Aryan mantle too.

Broad cultures contain sub-cultures. Teachers in a school may have a subculture breeding common attitudes; so may members of a business. The educated will have a different culture from the uneducated. There is even, ironically, a sub-culture of those who habitually disagree with establishment authority. In practice we are likely to belong, either tangentially or directly, to several cultures, and unconsciously switch our behaviour according to the company we are keeping. Erving Goffman’s classic, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, provides splendid examples of how people can switch their whole stance instantly, as they move from one sub-culture to another.

Catholic culture is founded on belonging to an ekklesia which holds that we have been redeemed by Christ, through whom we attain the purpose of our lives in attaining salvation. It is delineated by its structure which unifies it, and it is publicly expressed through the Mass. While it exists within secular society, its nature obliges it to view society critically, and carefully to protect itself against aspects which may diminish or extinguish its principles.

But within its radical unity many sub-cultures are to be found. The hierarchy and the laity inhabit different cultures, a distinction recently re-emphasised by the Pope. There are those who accept the lightest word from a clerical source, to those who evaluate any such words before deciding to accept or reject - and many gradations in between. Since we naturally spend much time with those whose culture is close to our own, we are programmed to accept its values, and are often oblivious to, or ignore, other sub-cultures. We seek to confirm our identities and our priorities by continuing to absorb, and indeed to promote, the values of our own sub-culture. Nevertheless, culture in itself can never be taken as a certain source of truth. Realising that our brains are constructed to affirm cultural values, we have to stand back from time to time and verify or reject what habitually has seemed to be right and good. And standing back is hard because we are revolting against our own biology, and so moving out of our comfort zone.

Lawrence Kohlberg, an eminent specialist in moral development, listed the stages of moral development from the selfishness typical of infancy up to the moral heroism of, say, Martin Luther King. There is a cardinal point in his schema where an individual begins to subject the moral standards he has absorbed from his culture to his independent personal judgment. Many people do not progress this far, so the ability to stand back and review their moral judgments will not be possible for them.

Others must be ready to mature further. They might be helped - and this is in line with the kind of suggestion Kohlberg makes - by looking at attitudes taken for granted in history, sacred or secular. For example, slavery was not only taken for granted but seen as natural and necessary. Our view of the equality and rights of women today would have been seen as bizarre only a few generations ago. The tag “error has no rights” (a philosophical solecism indeed) led to the assumption that no one was free in conscience to reject the Catholic Church. So indurated was this idea that many would have taken it as infallible teaching, until it was reversed in Vatican II. Pope John Paul II once claimed that the Holy See “has always been vigorous in defending freedom of conscience and religious liberty”. There are a few heretics who would raise a scorched eyebrow at that.

We may understand the context in which such ideas were commonly accepted, but they put us on warning that we need to have a critical eye for what is taken for granted now, just as these were taken for granted in their time. As George Santayana famously said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

“I am a loyal Catholic; you are a liberal dissenter; he is a downright heretic.” Where do you stand on the scale? And which orthodox attitudes do you take today, secular or sacred, will history repudiate?

O     O     O

While I didn’t want to be too hard on the ordinary, and dear, Catholic Herald reader, I thought that users of Second Sight were resilient enough to take the thought that anyone who could not think of any views taken for granted today which might, and perhaps should, change in the future, are probably brain dead. Prove me wrong!

The sad story of two, psychologically vulnerable, teenage girls jumping together to their deaths off a bridge near Glasgow has touched everyone. But I fear that worse may be to come. We are all aware that teenagers frequently go through difficult periods – indeed it may have happened to some of us. But we survived and matured: our former problems no more than memories. But suicide, which is all too common, terminates the future.

So why am I particularly fearful just now? The reason is what is known as the Werther effect. Goethe, in 1774, published Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (The Sorrows of Young Werther), in which the romantic protagonist committed suicide. It led to a number of emulative suicides in Europe – so much so that the book was banned in several countries.

Following the collection of data over 20 years, Frank Phillips was able to show that suicides which were given publicity were followed by substantial increases in the number of suicides during the next few months. Significantly these suicide peaks corresponded with the area in the US where a suicide had received most publicity. In addition there was an increase in fatal accidents, which were thought to be concealed suicides.

The classic Phillips study was published in 1974, but human nature has not changed, and the emotional trials of teenagers have certainly not decreased. A peer reviewed study, published in PloS ONE this month, shows that “copycat” suicides fall into a general category, where the victim is well known (perhaps a show business figure) and given wide publicity; and a more specialist category related to a local area or a community – such as a school. It is thought that the spate of suicides in Bridgend, South Wales comes into this second category.

Nowadays we have to take social networking into account. Facebook, Bebo and Twitter spring to mind. Bebo, for instance, focusses on students and, to judge by the number of invitations I receive each week, is mainly populated by females. I calculate that some 60 years separates me from these, doubtless, fair damsels, so I decline. But the members naturally form several interlocking groups of just the kind which would exchange thoughts about a teen age suicide.

The Press doesn’t help. I see that the Times and Daily Telegraph carry full pages on the day I write, and a glance at Google News shows 410 articles on the story. Today I discovered over 1000 recent media stories on teenage suicide in the UK alone. Dr Mesoudi (author of the study above) said “This highlights the need for media guidelines that restrict the dissemination and glorification of suicides.” Which is why I have not published this as a column but restricted it to registered members of Second Sight. As it happens, my next column will be on how we learn our values and behaviour from the cultures within which we move.

But I am sensible of the possibility that some of you may have vulnerable teenagers within your family. What can you do? Personally I would, in a general case, start a casual conversation over a family meal. But, where there appears to be abnormal vulnerability, only professional help will do.

There is a good, informative US site. If I needed more direct help, I would go to this UK site.

Do please comment on what I have said, and if you can add other points either from a professional or private perspective, that would be a service to us all.

When a member of Second Sight blog asked me to write about climate change my first reaction was that it was an enormously important question for Catholics to consider. The second was that I knew little about the subject other than what anyone might read in the casual press. Fortunately, bloggers were very generous with their advice and their leads to fuller information.

They were almost too generous. I found myself in a maelstrom of studies, papers and controversy. Controversy was the immediate difficulty: there are a large number of climate change sceptics (including climatologists) and their arguments appear forceful. On the other hand, each view was countered by opposing, and equally expert, responses. Now, I love an argument but it is of little use to me when I am not a climatologist and therefore unable to assess respective merits.

So I have settled as my primary source the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007. These reports can only be made at intervals since it is new observations over the passage of time which enable updating. Since the summary is over 70 pages, and I have had to mine deeper than that in several instances, you will understand that my account is broad-brush, and majors on questions rather than answers.

I start with an assumption that climate change is occurring, and will continue into the future. Its effects will be extremely damaging in many parts of the world. A major cause of the change is the industrial revolution, the emissions of which are the prime source of the greenhouse effect. This might be summarised by thinking of the atmosphere as a one-way filter: it allows heat in but prevents enough heat escaping. The evidence for the effects of human activity is not conclusive but extremely strong (in the order of 90 per cent). Since that assessment further data and new considerations have emerged from reputable sources.

Some of the worst effects may be mitigated through various actions such as reducing emissions or developing ways of giving protection to those affected. I hope to support and explore the evidence for this in future columns.

Why is this an important moral issue? The answer lies in a single word: charity. At my age I can expect to be dead before the effects of climate change bite. But Hugh, Tommy, Robert, William. Elé, Zak, Rachel, Liam, Abigail, Edmund, Sebastian, Matt, Alexander and Natasha will certainly experience them. I name my grandchildren to remind me that we are talking about real people. But our love extends beyond our own families, and remembers particularly countries and cultures likely to be worst affected.

But we can look behind the dominant peak of charity and also recall that Adam was given responsibility for the whole of the created world. We have inherited his mandate to act on God’s behalf. Beyond that, we have St Paul’s strange words (Rom 8:22): “We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now…” As Fr Durrwell argued, material creation, with its absence of harmony and order, is incorporated in the Resurrection, and everything that we do to restore its harmony is grist for the mill of the Last Judgment.

Reviewing what readers and bloggers have sent to me, I find a prevailing emphasis on the virtue of prudence. Prudence in following the best evidence, even if it is not conclusive. Prudence in reviewing the interlocking effects of steps which might be taken to avoid the worst global warming or to mitigate its effects. Here, for example, the point was made that there is an obvious conflict between assisting developing countries in their growth towards industrialisation, and the greater level of emissions which will accompany this.

Consideration was given to whether there should be more focus on developing carbon free sources of energy or on personal behaviour. Does, for example, the need to change all our incandescent light bulbs, or charging gas-guzzlers more for street parking, make the whole cause unpopular, while contributing only minutely to a solution? Conversely, does the satisfaction we may experience, say, through recycling rubbish make us feel virtuously involved and readier to make the larger sacrifices which may well be called for?

One interesting, but controversial, suggestion is that population growth in itself will be a major contributor. Indeed, a recent report claims that more widespread family planning is a better investment (by a factor of five) than developing carbon-free economies. The claim is made that, currently, an individual in the West will cause 160 times the emissions of an Ethiopian. This appears to me such a myopic solution, defying any attempt at prudence, that it requires closer examination in due course.

And writing about “due course” leads me to consider future columns on this subject. The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December looms, and we should inform ourselves and be active in discussion. I shall only write on this from time to time because variety must rule. But I think I should look with you more closely at the strength of the evidence that climate change is largely man-made, and try to quantify this. Methods of reduction and mitigation must be reviewed, bearing in mind their side-effects. The likely effects on different part of the world must be considered, and good and bad scenarios taken into account.

O     O     O

It was Tim, a regular contributor to Secondsight, who suggested that we should look at the issue of climate change. So it’s thanks to him – and all the others who sent in or posted questions and points. As I see the schedule at the moment, my next column on this will be in four weeks, and the third four weeks later. This will bring us up close to the crucial Copenhagen meeting where we will see what the major countries propose to do. So do comment on the columns as they arrive – whether you approve of the line I take, or disapprove. Then we will all be in a good position to take an educated view when we discuss the question with our friends.