The Climate
Strike on September 20, 2019 was the largest global action in the history of
the world. According to various news reports more 4 million people joined in
the strike. There were more than 4,000 events that happened in more than 150
countries. In addition to labor unions, and well-known organizations like
MoveOn, 350, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, other participants included:
Friday for Future, started by Greta Thunberg; Extinction Rebellion, a
London-based organization dedicated to creating political change through
nonviolent direct action; Our Children’s Trust; Future Coalition; and Friends
of the Earth International, and many more. The Climate Strike was to call for
an end to the age of fossil fuel. “Climate Justice for All,” was a rallying cry
for Climate Strikers.
The United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies land use
and the world’s food system as critical issues that must be addressed, if we
want to create a sustainable future. According to the IPCC, the world’s food
system is “a top cause of deforestation.” Population growth, increasing demand
for food, feed and water, more resource-intense consumption and production, and
more limited technological improvements in agricultural yields will result in
higher risks of water scarcity, land degradation, and wide-spread food
insecurity. Shockingly, the IPCC reports that one-third of the food produced is
either lost or wasted. The IPCC report calls for reduced food waste, eating
less meat, practicing sustainable land management, eliminating poverty, and
reducing economic inequality as necessary and practical steps that offer the
best chances to tackle climate change. The IPCC report calls for reforestation
and carbon dioxide reduction as necessary first steps.
In the
United States, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D. Cal.) has introduced a resolution
that would require climate education be taught in all schools. Many members of
Congress support the Green New Deal, which in simplified terms is a proposal to
wean the US economy from fossil fuels, and create new clean energy industries. Importantly,
proponents of the Green New Deal argue that we have the necessary tools and
knowledge to begin to implement many of the proposals included in the Green New
Deal. But do we have the political will?
There is
both domestic and international opposition to calls to end the age of fossil
fuels. The Regional Economic Partnership (RCEP) exemplifies this opposition.
The RCEP is China’s response to the failure of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
If it is finalized later this year, the RCEP will include 16 nations that
encompass one-third of the global GDP and almost one-half of the world’s
population. One goal of the RCEP is to liberalize trade and investment by
reducing government oversight and regulation. A second goal is to protect
intellectual property rights. A controversial center-piece of the RCEP is a
mechanism called the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). If adopted the
ISDS would allow corporations to sue states, if state regulations have a
negative impact on corporate profits. Critics of the ISDS argue that it is
already testing the government’s ability to protect human rights and the
environment in Thailand, Japan, South Korea, India and elsewhere.
Faith
communities in the United States can help us get past the present impasse by
reframing the debate. A study conducted by Yale University and George Mason
University entitled “Climate Change in the American Mind” offers some clues.
The study found that 70 percent of Americans (people living in the United
States) think of themselves as Christian, and 64 percent of us think the global
warming is either extremely, very, or somewhat important. According to the
study, two primary motivations for wanting to mitigate global warming are to
provide a better life for our children and grandchildren (29 percent), and to
protect God’s creation (19 percent). Taking our clues from this study, an ethic
for the future must be both intergenerational in the fullest meaning of the
word, and ecologically sustainable. A theological ethic based on these two
principles will emphasize the importance of achieving balance in all our
relationships--present and future to the seventh generation. Mutuality and
reciprocity are two key concepts in this ethical framework.
The concept
of mutuality carries with it a sense of shared or common interests. Mutual
relationships are by definition balanced relationships. Parental concern for
our children and grandchildren implies that the present generation is willing
to balance its interests with the needs and interests of other generations--both
present and future--to safe-guard everyone’s well-being. There are
well-established metrics of well-being, which include such things as access to
affordable health care, education, housing, public safety, environmental
sustainability, and so forth. Mutuality is not an abstract concept. The ethical
mandate is to extend the concept of mutuality beyond the family to include the
broader community, recognizing that we live in through our relationships with
others--including the earth. We live in a cosmic web of mutuality and
interdependence. Mutuality is not a foreign concept, but rather a basic value
that makes and keeps us human.
Reciprocity
is a second key concept in the ethical framework that I am proposing. Narrowing
defined, reciprocity means that there is a give and take, an exchange of things
of relatively equal value between or among parties. More broadly, however, we
may think of reciprocity and an anticipatory ethic. We act in ways that
anticipate a response from others. Thus, our actions create a space for the
action of others. The commandment, “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you,” is an example of the ethic of reciprocity. The concept of reciprocity
empowers us to act in ways that are consistent with the kind of future we
envision and want to create, and it creates a safe space for others to respond
to our actions. The response may come in the form of a challenge, a refinement,
or in some new and novel way we had not anticipated. Reciprocity is, thus, a
dialogical model. We live each moment of our lives in dialogue with the earth,
with others who are seen and unseen, and with future generations.
The dominant
ethics in Western culture have been the ethics of right and wrong, and the
ethics of ends and means. The proposal introduced in the foregoing paragraphs
leads away from the ethics of certainty, which is implied in the ethics of
right vs. wrong and ends justifies the means, toward a more flexible framework.
It is a relational model that asks us to begin with an awareness of our present
situation. Know thyself. Aristotle said that self-knowledge is the beginning of
the moral life. It still is. If we will simply have the courage to examine our present
situation, our relationships with others, and our hopes for and obligations to
future generations, I believe we can fashion a fitting ethical framework that
will benefit both the present and our shared future.
Respectfully,
David Hansen
No comments:
Post a Comment