Petersen, AC

UCL Discovery

Review	for	ESSSAT	News	&	Review,	September	2013	(ESSSAT	News	&	Reviews	is	the	bulletin	of	the	European	Society	for	the	Study	of	Sciences	and	Theology,	http://www.esssat.eu)		Robert	L.	Nadeau:	Rebirth	of	the	Sacred:	Science,	Religion,	and	the	New	Environmental	Ethos.	New	York:	Oxford	University	Press,	2013,	194	pp.,	ISBN	978-0-19-994236-7	(hdbk)	$29.95	£18.99.	This	book	attempts	to	provide	a	scientific	underpinning	for	its	call	to	arms,	in	its	final,	pamphlet	chapter,	of	prophets	who	are	willing	to	fight	nonviolent	battles	(using	protests,	rallies,	town	meetings,	boycotts,	and	political	campaigns)	with	climate	change	contrarians	and	proponents	of	“false	gods	in	the	religion	of	The	Market”	(p.	154).	However,	it	will	most	probably	not	convince	a	broad	group	of	people	from	a	variety	of	cultural	and	political	backgrounds,	and	only	be	appealing	to	a	subgroup	of	religious	environmentalists	who	already	share	the	author’s	view	that	we	need	a	supranational	system	of	federal	government.	The	book	is	positioned	in	an	American	setting	and	very	critical	of	US	politics.	It	is	also	very	critical	of	the	United	Nations,	which	can	never	work,	in	the	author’s	view,	in	solving	global	environmental	problems,	since	the	basis	of	political	power	in	the	UN	is	the	sovereign	nation-state.		Nadeau	disqualifies	the	possibility	that	sovereign	nation-states	may	be	able	to	solve	global	environmental	problems	together.	He	argues,	following	Peter	Singer,	that	“the	present	system	of	international	government	is	premised	on	dogmatic	beliefs	associated	with	the	construct	of	the	sovereign	nation-state	that	are	no	longer	commensurate	with	the	terms	of	human	survival”	(p.	89).	He	claims	that	the	construct	of	the	sovereign	nation-state	is	based	on	unscientific	assumptions	and	furthermore	that	“a	sovereign	nation-state	has	never	endorsed	an	agreement	that	priviliges	the	goal	of	achieving	a	sustainable	global	environment	over	its	own	perceived	vested	interests”	(pp.	84–85).		However,	there	are	both	logical	and	empirical	problems	with	this	disqualification	of	the	possibility	to	deal	with	global	environmental	problems	through	the	United	Nations	and/or	bi-	and	multilateral	agreements	between	sovereign	nation-states.	The	logical	problem	is	that	it	does	not	follow	from	the	provenance	of	the	construct	of	the	sovereign	nation-state	that	–	as	Nadeau	implies	–	“it	is	not	possible	in	a	system	of	international	government	in	which	the	only	source	of	political	power	is	the	sovereign	nation-state	to	implement	the	scientifically	viable	public	policies	and	economic	programs	required	to	resolve	the	environmental	crisis”	(p.	77).	The	empirical	problem	is	that	there	are	some	examples	of	effective	global	and	regional	environmental	agreements.	To	give	two	examples	from	the	UN:	agreements	that	will	ultimately	safe	the	ozone	layer	(nowhere	mentioned	in	Nadeau’s	book)	and	agreements	that	have	cleaned	the	air	in	Europe	(one	of	which	is	mentioned,	but	strangely,	and	without	giving	reasons,	Nadeau	says	that	it	“made	a	mockery	of	the	scientifically	based	solutions”,	p.	86).	It	seems	to	me	that	it	is	really	the	US	government’s	position	in	climate	negotiations	which	leads	to	Nadeau’s	pessimism	regarding	the	UN.Unfortunately,	the	book	is	very	sloppy	about	the	details	of	its	main	case,	climate	change.	In	the	introduction,	the	tone	is	overly	alarmist	with	many	unfounded	claims	made	and	too	much	attention	paid	to	one	very	unrealistic	Pentagon	scenario	from	a	decade	ago.	In	chapter	1,	it	is	assumed	that	the	whole	climate	science	community	is	adequately	represented	by	one	particularly	vocal	climate	scientist,	James	Hansen,	and	the	errors	made	in	the	2007	report	of	the	Intergovernmental	Panel	on	Climate	Change	(IPCC)	are	erroneously	portrayed.	In	chapter	5,	the	role	of	the	IPCC	(versus	that	of	the	UN	Framework	Convention	on	Climate	Change)	is	misunderstood.	And	in	chapter	9,	there	is	confusion	between	the	Kyoto	Protocol	and	the	UN	Framework	Convention	on	Climate	Change,	and	the	Kyoto	Protocol	is	misportrayed.	The	least	problematic	chapters	of	the	book	are	two	chapters	on	classical	and	neoclassical	economics,	respectively,	which	naturally	flow	from	two	earlier	books	by	the	author	(The	Wealth	of	Nature:	How	Mainstream	Economics	Has	Failed	the	Environment,	2003,	and	The	Environmental	Endgame:	Mainstream	Economics,	Ecological	Disaster,	and	Human	Survival,	2006).	Nadeau	offers	a	well-reasoned	interpretation	of	Adam	Smith’s	invisible	hand,	which	is	seen	as	a	“natural	law”	of	economics	and	as	created	by	a	deistic	god.	This	explains	“why	the	true	believers	in	the	benevolent	machinations	of	the	invisible	hand	.	.	.	assume	that	market	forces	that	allegedly	result	from	the	operations	of	these	natural	laws	are	part	of	a	sacredly	ordained	providential	plan	and	should	not	be	interfered	with	by	government	or	any	other	agency”	(p.	105).	And	he	shows	convincingly	that	neoclassical	economics	is	predicated	on	“unscientific	assumptions	about	the	lawful	dynamics	of	market	systems”	(p.	105)	inappropriately	copied	from	mid-nineteenth	century	theory	in	physics.				Subsequently,	Nadeau	points	out	in	the	second	last	chapter	that	not	the	natural	laws	of	economics	(and	their	neglect	of	the	environment)	should	be	regarded	as	sacred,	but	that	a	new	theory	of	economics	is	needed	in	which	“[t]he	ecosystem	.	.	.	would	be	viewed	as	the	source	of	all	life,	and	preserving	and	protecting	the	capacity	of	this	system	to	sustain	the	richness	and	diversity	of	life	would	be	a	sacred	and	nonnegotiable	responsibility”	(p.	134).	He	ends	that	chapter	by	promoting	“ecological	economics”,	which	he	oddly	pits	against	“environmental	economics”,	though	he	sometimes	uses	the	terms	interchangeably.	Again,	the	author	is	very	negative	about	the	US,	and	Sweden,	Denmark	and	Germany	are	hailed	by	him	as	positive	examples	of	nations	that	“have	attempted	to	create	some	semblance	of	a	steady-state	economy”	(p.	133).		Most	interesting	about	this	book	is	that	it	aims	“to	make	a	convincing	case	that	these	massive	changes	in	our	political	and	economic	institutions	could	occur	if	sufficient	numbers	of	environmentally	concerned	people	in	the	five	great	religious	traditions	of	the	world	enter	the	new	dialogue	between	the	truths	of	science	and	religion”	(pp.	7–8).	In	three	chapters,	Nadeau	tells	the	new	scientific	stories	on	humanity,	physics	and	biology.	This	leads	him	near	the	end	of	the	book	to	formulate	a	new	environmental	ethos	with	a	profound	spiritual	dimension:	“all	aspects	of	physical	and	spiritual	reality,	including	human	life	and	consciousness,	are	emergent	from	and	embedded	in	a	single	significant	whole”	(p.	146).	Then	it	becomes	possible,	according	to	Nadeau	to	discover	that	it	is	possible	“to	love	life	enough	to	safe	it”	(E.O.	Wilson),	viewing	love	as	an	art	that	requires	“discipline,	concentration	and	patience”	(Erich	Fromm).		Although	the	book	will	strike	a	chord	with	some,	I	am	afraid	the	case	has	not	been	made.	 	 Arthur	C.	Petersen		 VU	University	Amsterdam	

Review of Robert L. Nadeau, Rebirth of the Sacred: Science, Religion, and the New Environmental Ethos

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10034053/7/Petersen_Review%20Nadeau%20by%20Petersen%20ESSSAT%20News%20%2526%20Reviews%20September%202013_v2.pdf

Review of Robert L. Nadeau, Rebirth of the Sacred: Science, Religion, and the New Environmental Ethos

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery