Why we should not go on "Saving the the Planet"

Hi all,

First off, I have a new favourite website: NASA Climate Change FAQ. And even though I should be struggling my way through writing an add-on script in Python, I would like to share this with you. Go HERE!

It's a great variety of questions and answers, but in my opinion, an important one is missing. Climate change and glaciology have been prominent in the media over the past weeks, with the discovery of hidden canyons beneath Greenland and the irreversibility of West Antarctic Glacier Melt. And of course you then here the outcry "We need to save the planet! Look at what we're doing to it!"

My question and answer for today: 'Why is it NOT about "saving the planet"?'
The short answer will be in the words of comedian George Carlin, who's much more eloquent than I am and argues the same case.

"The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here a long, Long, LONG time after we're gone." 

-- George Carlin

As for the longer answer.. Saving the planet is an abstract notion that cannot engage more than a few, as saving (ie. preserving in its current/ some previous state) would require putting a stop to all anthropogenic activity. It is however, almost too easy to lose oneself in this abstract notion, because planet earth is the only home we know and have. In all of its beauty and usefulness providing ecological services, it seems to go against our instincts to say "It's not about saving the planet."

In 2001, De Paiva Duarte publishes an interesting article regarding the notion of the planet in an environmental protection mindset: "'Save the earth' or 'manage the earth'? The politics of environmental globality in a high modernity" (De Paiva Duarte, 2001). In this paper, he addresses exactly the question of this blog post, and labels the two streams of thinking 'ecocentric globality' vs. 'instrumental globality'. Ecocentric globality can be summarised as a worldview considering the earth a living thing, which humans are morally obliged to preserve. Instrumental globality conceives the planet as a system of resources, needing to protected for human consumption (De Paiva Duarte, 2001).

Danger lies in either of these world views, with on the one hand prioritising the preservation of planet earth regardless of the knowledge that it will find a new equilibrium. The danger in the instrumental globality exists in the disregard of the long term, extracting all the earth provides and hereby making 'her' (Gaia) unliveable for the future.

In my small opinion, the most important issue is to preserve earth so that it remains fit for humans to live under the rule of law. This means climate and environmental change mitigation to an extent that huge migration and thus political chaos can largely be avoided. Don't "save the planet" for the planet's sake. But for life under the rule of law, on this beautiful organic spaceship.