by Micah Tillman

The West beat Russia in Cold War I through economics, they say. Rather than killing them, we out-succeeded them. Money is power, and our system worked better at getting us money than theirs.

If that's true, then the prospect of a coming depression, combined with rising Russian aggression, is worrisome. And it's especially so, given the reasoning behind Putin's recent gas-supply cut to Europe.

Here's what Jeff Poor reported on Tuesday: (h/t Pollowitz)

Accuweather.com’s chief long-range and hurricane forecaster Joe Bastardi observed that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s recent cut of gas flows to Europe via Ukraine may have been done . . . in anticipation of a global cooling cycle. . . .

[Bastardi said:] “Now my theory . . . is that Putin knows what is going to happen – or he believes the same way I do about the overall climate pattern. So, if you control the pipeline into Europe, you literally can control Europe without firing a shot – if you control the energy.”

As Greg Pollowitz remarked: "Literally, the Cold War is back!"

A lack of energy could trigger an economic depression, one assumes (even though one isn't an economist and really knows nothing about this sort of thing). How could the West defeat Russia in Cold War II if it's in the middle of a depression?

____

However, I'd suggest that Russia's most powerful ally may not be an economic depression. It may be a spiritual depression (using "spiritual" in the same sense as the German word geistig).

Global Warming has become an integral part of many Westerner's "meaning" in life. As Jonah Goldberg observes:

The beauty of global warming is that it touches everything we do--what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Our "carbon footprint" is the measure of man. And it is environmentalism's ability to provide meaning that should interest us here. (Liberal Fascism, p. 383)

Whatever you think of Goldberg, don't shoot the message because of the messenger. The connection between environmentalism (in general) and personal value is strong, especially because of The Doctrine of the Carbon Footprint.

Believing in that doctrine is a simple way to see everything you do as being important. Everything you do contributes to your carbon footprint. And since Global Warming is caused by carbon footprints, everything you do contributes to Global Warming.

But if everything you do contributes to Global Warming, and Global Warming is killing the Earth, then you have the power to either murder or save the planet.

Thus, even forgettable things like what you ate for breakfast become life or death issues. In fact, everything becomes a life or death issue. Your life is flooded with importance, value, meaning.

____

But what if Global Warming doesn't happen? What if the prophecies don't come true? What if it turns out that the Earth cools, no matter the size of your carbon footprint?

What if, in other words, everything you do doesn't matter after all?

That's what Frankl called an "existential crisis." It's what Kierkegaard and Heidegger called "angst" (or "profound boredom") and what Camus called "the absurd."

And it's what a normal person would call "life-threatening depression."

Of course, such a widespread, crippling depression in the Church of Environmentalism would open the way for a much-needed Reformation. (A return to focusing on real pollution and on beautification, for instance, would be wonderful). But one wonders whether the Church could survive at all.

And with so much of our politics now tied up in the success of the Church, what effects would the spiritual depression caused by Global Cooling have on a new Cold War? The shreds of trust that citizens still have in their "leaders" will be gone. Entire programs, and billions (?) of dollars, will have gone to waste.

Furthermore, what would Global Cooling do to the messiahship of Obama? Obama isn't a politician like all the rest. You could lose your faith in politicians, and still believe in Obama.

But what if he claimed to be the Earth's healer, and then we discovered the Earth wasn't sick (at least, not sick in the way he said)? What "political will" would there be left to "fight" another Cold War in a culture who's new depressive catch phrase would be, "What's the point?"

____

If the West gets into Cold War II, and the Russians are already right (assuming Putin really is a Global Cooling-ist, as Bastardi thinks), it wouldn't be like Cold War I all over again. In Cold War I, the question of who was right (economically) could have been taken as "still up in the air."

So, it's really up to the Earth, then isn't it? If it cools, Putin is right and spiritual depression spreads across the West. If it warms, we won't need as much energy (and can use alternative sources), but the West goes into economic depression trying to fix the warming.

Oh, wait. Either way, Russia comes out on top.

Well, maybe it won't come to all that. Maybe there will be Reformation in environmentalism. Maybe the depression caused by cooling will be offset by the newfound vigor of non-Warmingists. Or maybe governments can mess with economies in the name of the Earth and not cause a new Depression.

One can always hope.

Micah Tillman is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America.