Is Environmentalism Now A Recognized Religion?

LONDON (Nov. 10) -- Eco-warriors and religious people have a lot in common: They make personal sacrifices for their ideals -- be it giving up the SUV or meat on Fridays -- and many evangelize their way of life. Does that mean that a belief in man-made climate change deserves the same legal protection as religious beliefs?

One London judge thinks so, ruling last week that environmentalism should be granted the same status as Christianity, Islam and a host of other faiths under British employment law. Now some eco experts worry that this controversial decision only plays into the arguments of global warming skeptics, who have long accused the green movement of being irrational and unscientific.

The equal rights battle began in July 2008, when Tim Nicholson, 42, lost his job as head of sustainability at Grainger, Britain's largest residential landlord. Nicholson claims he was dismissed because his deeply held beliefs over climate change and the environment were at odds with the views of senior executives. He also alleges management obstructed his attempts to make the company more eco-friendly and treated his environmental concerns with contempt. (Grainger counters that Nicholson's dismissal was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required the company to make other structural changes.)

Nicholson used a quirky British law -- the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations -- to sue his former employer. The law states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person because of his or her religious or philosophical beliefs. But the regulation fails to qualify exactly what counts as a "philosophical belief," leaving judges to make the decision on a case-by-case basis. Grainger argued that Nicholson's environmental zeal didn't qualify for protection under the law. But on Nov. 3, Justice Michael Burton ruled that Nicholson could take action against his former employer, as "a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 [law]."



Nicholson, who now works at an Oxford-based green health care organization, said Burton's decision was "a victory for common sense that is important not only for me, but for anyone who is suffering from discrimination due to their belief in man-made climate change." What the judgment didn't do, he said, is transform environmentalism into a religion. "My philosophical belief in climate change does not reflect any kind of faith or spirituality or belief in a greater being," Nicholson told Sphere. "But the moral and ethical values that motivate me to do something about climate change are similar in cogency and status to a religious belief. I care about the welfare of fellow human beings, and I think those values are prevalent in many of the world's religions."

While Nicholson claims the case as a win for greens, many global warming doubters see the decision as a justification for their skepticism. Two days after the verdict, Daniel Johnson, editor of the right-leaning Standpoint magazine, asked readers to consider the similarities between "green zealotry" and "religious fanaticism." Others in his camp agreed. "This is a defeat for the believers," said John Brignell, emeritus professor of industrial instrumentation at the University of Southampton and editor of the skeptical site www.numberwatch.co.uk. "The last thing believers want is to have it accepted that they're practicing a religion rather than a science."

Professor Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at Oxford University, admits that the judgment is a "gift to climate skeptics. It means the argument can't be resolved, it just becomes a philosophical debate that people take a position on, and there's no scope for evidence-based policy." He says that to judge climate change in terms of "belief" and "philosophy" simply degrades science. "We're arguing about matters that are testable scientific questions, like, 'What is the impact of greenhouse gas emissions today in a century to come?' We can answer that question -- it's not a matter of philosophical or theological belief," he says. "I don't ask anyone to believe in human influence on climate change because I do. I ask them to look at the evidence."

For other eco-campaigners, the ruling on Nicholson's case is all that matters. "It's a messy outcome, and a lot of skeptics are gloating over this decision," says Leo Murray, a spokesman for anti-aviation group Plane Stupid. "But in practical terms, it can't be a bad thing, if it stops companies just paying lip service to sustainability."

Despite Nicholson's courtroom success, his legal battle isn't over yet. Early next year, he'll have to appear before an employment tribunal and prove that Grainger sacked him because of his environmental beliefs, not because of a corporate shake-up. The tribunal will decide if he should be awarded compensation. But Nicholson is already confident that he's made life easier for fellow believers. "Whatever happens in my own case," he says, "this decision will benefit the growing number of people who have strong views and beliefs in relation to the environment and climate change."