Shakespeare Weighs In On The Climate Change Hoax [Reader Post]

Phil Jomes steps down.
One down 23,999 to go.

Before you shackle Shakespeare to your fossil-fuelled, carbon spewing denial bandwagon you may want to consider that you have just quoted an illegitimate war mongering king who is trying to suppress an insurgency by dismissing the fact that all the natural omens are against his rule. (It does sound kind of applicable to a recent American administration, but not the one you were talking about.)

In case that isn’t enough to convince you that Shakespeare believed that humankind was often at nature’s mercy and not vice versa, here are some picks from the wider cannon by Mark Rylance, an artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company:

“Great Floods have flown from simple sources”
(All’s Well that Ends Well – 2, 1, 142)

****

“And with thy daring folly burn the world”
(Two Gentlemen of Verona – 3, 1, 155)

****

“Therefore the moon, the governess of floods,
Pale in her anger washes all the air,
That rheumatic diseases do abound;
And thorough this distemperature we see
The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts
Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson rose,
And on old Hiems’ thin and icy crown
An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds
Is, as in mock’ry, set. The spring, the summer,
The childing autumn, angry winter change
Their wonted livieries, and the mazed world
By their increase now knows not which is which;
And this same progeny of evils comes
From our debate, from our dissension.”
(Midsummer Night’s Dream – 2, 1)

****

“These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us. Through the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects.”
(King Lear – 1, 2)

The next time you try to claim climate change isn’t anthropogenic, please consider Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” (Julius Caesar, 1,2)

And while you’re at it, the next time you’re trying to deny the people of Iraq or Afghanistan the right to live free from despotism and injustice, the poor the right to health care, or the LGBTQI community the right to equality before the law consider a quote by that other great Anglophone fiction writer Matthew – “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)

Additionally, the next time you’re whining about that ‘Marxist’ Obama, think of the people living under genuine communist oppression in China, Venezuela, North Korea and Russia, and how much they would kill for even a fraction of the civil liberties your movement enjoys seemingly without even thinking about, much less without putting any effort into being factual and measured about. Finally, know that if America is respected around the world as a beacon of freedom, it’s because of Obama and the Democrats and the moderate Republic’s commitment to economic regulation, social security and civil liberty – and not Bush’s tax breaks, cash splashes, gag rules and french fry boycotts. One of the miracles of your free society means that you don’t have to agree with your current government, or anything they do, as well you shouldn’t. But know that when you try to deny climate change, or falsely claim your governments are Marxists, the rest of the world mocks you like clowns and spurns you like they spurn rabid dogs.

I wish you a safe, happy and reflective new year.

An open response: 

How nice of you to have replied. I really just wanted to defend Shakespeare and ram a few points home, but I would hate to leave anyone with the impression that I would rather bury my head in a book than tackle these important issues -many of them global- in a direct and factual manner. I also recognise that I got a little sanctimonious, so I’ll try to be as measured as possible. 

I do happen to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I am pretty comfortable when backed up with the certainty of the 1000+ scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICCP). 

I happen to feel though, that whether or not climate change is anthropogenic isn’t the point.  It is undeniable that the temperature patterns are changing and causing more havoc internationally, from the snow storms that closed the Eurostar over Christmas to the rampant bushfires in Australia which created the highest deathtoll they have had in a normal fire season for more than a decade According to several prominent scientists including Tim Flannery,  natural disasters are also becoming more frequent and ferocious, as the Boxing Day Tsunami affecting Indonesia and the Pacific and costing more than 200 000 lives, and your own Hurricane Katrina have demonstrated. I happen to think that this kind of disaster relief  should be planned for in annual budgets so states don’t have to extend the decificit – a pretty conservative view, by the way. This idea is supported by the precautionary principle, (number 15 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, for which the US was instrumental in drafting and lobbying.) The precautionary principle, in case I need to explain, basically binds governments to act in cases of climate-based disaster whether they think  their responsibility for it is scientifically proven or not. 

I’m not really sure what your movement means when it tries to claim Obama is turning your country into a ‘Marxist’ country. By Marxism, do you mean dialectical materialism? I’m not a rabidly leftwing person, but I don’t think the idea that history is propelled by class struggle is necessarily wrong – it would be where your beloved right to private property comes from, an attempt to protect the French petit bourgeoisie from the great unwashed after the first revolution. Is ‘Marxist country’ the expression y’all use because you know you can’t say communist, for reasons alluded to in my first post? 

Semantics aside, I assume you’re talking about two things. The first, is the massive industrial bail-outs that have happened since the financial collapse, right? I think propping up Freddie Mac, Fannie May, General Motors etc. hardly qualifies as ‘seizing the means of production’. Softening the impact of the subprime mortgage crisis and helping people to stay in privately owned homes is also a pretty capitalist-friendly policy. Even if it were an attempt to create Stalinst pogroms for the poor, though, it would still be a bipartisan effort. The Bush Administration started the bail-out. The Obama Administration can hardly take credit for this apparent ‘Marxism’ alone. 

I assume the second ‘Marxist’ thing is the Health Care bill that just went through the Senate.  Thanks to Joe Liebermann, I understand there is no longer a public option, so you can hardly call it a ‘Marxist’, ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ policy. The state-based system of health care that was looking to be repealed by original drafts of the bill may have been more Marxist in its original form – but with its border protections, and ties of health care to employment, unique across the world, it certainly seems hugely anti-competitive. 

You may be entirely right that I know nothing about the constitution. I am, after all, only a lawyer. But let’s have a crack at the ‘right to health’ anyway. I agree that rights are pretty nebulous, and this one is especially. But I think it’s implicitly guaranteed in your Constitution & Bill of Rights in a few different ways. Let’s look at the means -taxation- before the ends -health. The first implicit licence for federal healthcare is Article I Sections 1 and 8 which clearly vest legislative powers, including control over fiscal matters, in Congress.I don’t think this is contradicted by Article 4, the Articles of Confederation, or the 10th Amendment, which all spell out limitations on power. In fact, as far as I understand, the 16th Amendment allows the Federal government to collect income tax without dealing the states in. The fact that the vast majority of the scheme is being funded by a tax on elective non-medical cosmetic surgery means this argument isn’t necessary. The the right to health in the American Constitution is not spelled out, but implied in the first and eighth amendments guarantee a right to life and a freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. I think you can argue that the lay worker -or the professional, to evoke Tom Hanks- who is sacked because he has AIDS is having both these rights violated. Bowers v. The State of New York would have established this principle, if it hadn’t been dismissed and ended in an out of court settlement. Finally, the fact that the US has signed but not ratified the International Covenant Against Economic, Social and Cultural Rights means it can still be reasonably expected that the legislature take the spirit of these laws into account. In Europe, Latin America and in some cases Africa, regional courts would take this into account and deliver more binding judgements, as ever, the US is unique. 

I’m so glad you mentioned Bastiat! If you’d mentioned a serious economic like Friedmann or Hayek I might have felt like I had to go into detail, but with ‘The Law’ we’re fine. I have happened to have read it, in French, for shits and giggles – and I thought it was cute, really. I particularly like the way Monsier Bastiat bastardised his thesis about the role of government from Rousseau, and then tried to disguise it by denigrating him. I find it particularly interesting that he’s opposed to public education – does he expect everybody’s grandfather to die and leave him a great fortune so they can go on to become great (if forgotten) philosophers? Haven’t you also noticed that some of his obsessions – private property, wealth etc. are typical of a post revolutionary society? If ‘La Loi’ was published in the early fifties it was probably written in 1848. How silly we are! To think people remember Victor Hugo and Les Miserables from this period instead! But seriously, like the Second Amendment, you can’t expect his lessons to be worth anything for a country not plunged in civil war. In terms of  relevant economic scholars and moral philosophers, you really can’t go past Keynes and Russell. 

Finally, you are entirely correct that Matthew himself was not an Anglophone person. But since the most circulated editions of the Bible are currently  the Good News, the New Internationalist (sadly not my favourite, The King James) I felt justified in refering to that Gospel extract as an Anglophone work of fiction. Maybe it’s really faction, like Dave Eggers, Norma Khouri or James Frey. But I certainly can’t read the originals in Latin or Arameic so we’ll just have to settle. If you feel I am wrong about this I can only reiterate that I’m perfectly happy to be – I tend to read law, science and journalism, not fairy tales. 

Oh – one more matter of detail. You seem to be having trouble with my screen name. It was Lady MacFact, a reference to the character in the Scottish play and the need to be honest about this whole raft of issues. I can only ascribe the mispelling two three things:
-A series of typos
-Dyslexia 
-The implication that I’m fat

I’m going to assume it was the last one. Since the USA is the nation with the highest rate of obesity on earth, I can only assume you were  both generously trying to make me feel at home in your online community. Thank you for your kindness – and enjoy the rest of the Obama Administration.