Spirituality of the Essential: a Christian response to Climate Change
One of the important concerns of our contemporary history is the problem of climate change. In December 2009, almost 15,000 officials gathered in Copenhagen to discuss the future of the planet earth and the human responsibility in caring for it. The UN conference that ended in an impasse shows that the solution to this problem does not lie just in the hands of politicians. Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, believes that religions have a unique role to play in the struggle for the environment. What is actually needed right now to resolve the crisis is not just policies – but a change of heart, a change of life style, a new definition of development, a spirituality. Politicians only make short-term-focussed policies. It is religion that can “inspire people to change” (The Tablet, 5 Dec 2009).
The problem of climate change
What is the problem? There are some who deny that there is a problem at all. They say that the climate has always been changing. In the 4.5 billion-year history of planet earth there have been catastrophes, extreme climates, creation and re-creation of different forms of life. So what is the problem? The problem is that the present situation is largely contributed by human activity. The problem is that the rate of climate change itself is accelerating. The problem is that it is taking place before our eyes (the fading snow on Mt Kenya and Mt Kilimanjaro!). The problem is that this change threatens our own existence. The problem is that the poor people are the ones who suffer most due to this, as the Pope said in an Angelus-message prior to the Copenhagen Conference.
Sometime back, one of my colleagues naively said at table: when we use water, actually we are not wasting it. After all, it goes back to earth, or perhaps it gets evaporated by the sun. It is back in the cycle. Yes, he was right. There is that law of thermodynamics: energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. I am sure you’ve heard that before! But my colleague was also wrong. There is also the law of entropy: this law adds that as we use more and more energy the usable energy becomes less available in the universe, creating a residue of unusable energy. That is the problem. But let me explain this in simple words: when you open the tap you get water. How did the water get to the tap? Energy was needed to pump the water from its source to your tap. Once you open the tap and the water flows out, you need another set of energy to put it back! Where do we get this energy from? We can harness it from nature: gushing water, scorching sun, rushing wind, heat of the earth, etc. Tapping energy from sun and wind is more difficult with the technology available to us now. In the past two centuries, we have found an easy way to harness energy: from coal, oil and gas; from what is called, ‘fossil fuel’. Of course, we are only transforming energy. But the problem with the use of fossil fuel is that the carbon that took millions of years to be captured in the present form is being released into the atmosphere in matter of days! For instance, just consider this: the carbon released by the use of a car in one year by an average American will take 100 years to be captured by a tree! Now this upsets the natural energy cycle of the earth. This is the crux of what is now called ‘climate change’, or ‘climate chaos’ as it is known more recently.
There are also other mid-level problems that follow from this, or are associated with the cycle of energy, that we hear about in the media: the emission of greenhouse gases, deforestation, extinction of animal species, ozone depletion, rise in temperature, melting of polar ice, rise in sea level; the list seems endless. All these are interconnected and they aggravate each other.
For me, there is an underlying philosophical problem. We live in an energy hungry world. What created this hunger? Our definition of development! Is development being able to access basic needs of life that ensures ‘quality of life’ or is it having all that you want just because you can afford it? Put simply, development is falsely identified with the availability hundreds of varieties of cereals, jams, and marmalades. Development is identified with the use of a towel for each part of the body. Development is identified with the use of several plates and glasses for a meal. We refer to their use as, ‘being civilised’. In short, development is identified with consumerism. (This concept of development is also related to capitalistic-free-market economy. When there was the credit crunch they asked us to spend more! In this sense, the global recession of 2008 and climate change have the same root cause.) Ironically, development of a country is measured in terms of the amount of garbage that it produces. World’s most developed nations also generate most amount of garbage. Most developed countries also export garbage. Garbage from UK is exported to Brazil! They just console themselves that, after all, garbage is being recycled. But even recycling requires energy! In short, only 20% of the world’s population consumes 77% of world’s resources, including energy. Thank God for this! Imagine what would happen if everyone on the planet begins to consume at this rate! But this is what we are all aspiring to. We will come back to this shortly.
However, one thing that we have learnt from climate change is that almost everything on planet earth is connected. Upsetting one aspect leads to a whole chain of reactions. If one group of people do harm to planet earth, nearly everyone suffers. Let us say, we have a common grazing ground that is shared, and we agree that if each one has three cows we should be able to sustain ourselves, our cows and the grazing ground. Now if one of us adds a fourth cow, just because he can afford it, he will get the benefits of the fourth cow, but all the others suffer the immediate consequences. But in the long run even the owner of the fourth cow will suffer. So we know there is a problem. We know this is serious. Where does the solution lie?Present stalemate: political – economic – ethical implications
There is increasing political will to find a common solution to the problem of climate change, but perhaps it’s just not sufficient. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) formed by the UN announced for the first time in 1990 that if we continued with “business-as-usual” the earth will be hotter by 3oC by the year 2100 (but according to present estimates it will be 6o), and this will be highest temperature rise in the past 10,000 years of earth’s history. But the threshold to save the planet from any catastrophe is 2 o. So in 1992, an Earth Summit was held at Rio de Janeiro, and a convention was signed by almost all nations. Again, in 1997 at Kyoto, governments of 37 industrialised countries agreed to cut down the emission of greenhouse gases (that includes CO2, methane and nitrous oxide), and other countries to share in other responsibilities. But unfortunately some countries have not signed it. That includes countries like Afghanistan, Somalia – which have not had proper governments - and the United States of America. And yet, USA with only 5% of world’s population is responsible for 23% of global emissions of greenhouse gases. Who will call for sanctions against countries like this?
And in December 2009, we had the Copenhagen Conference. The outcome of the Conference was a document that had no consensus or any clear obligation on the nations of the world. The reason according to me is that politicians cannot go against their own people. We need to look at a few facts squarely and ethically:
• Often you hear that China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas. This is true in one sense, but this statement is deceptive. China, as a nation, is responsible for 21.5% of global CO2 emission, but is closely followed by USA (with 20.2% CO2 alone). But consider the population of China! In the list of per capita emissions of greenhouse gas, USA ranks 7th, the UK 47th, China 121st, Kenya 158th, and India 162nd! Remember, the increasing emission in countries like China, India and Brazil is also outsourced emission – Europe and America are pushing their industries to these countries, while depending more and more on providing services and marketing technology for their own economy!
• Developing countries argue on the basis of their present per capita emission and our definition of ‘development’ that if they are to uplift their masses from the clutches of poverty they will have to contribute to global emission. They have to provide jobs – to provide jobs, they need industry – and industry needs energy – and that means carbon emission. After all, this is the path that was previously traced by the developed nations.
• But thanks to scientific technology, the developing world does not need to take the same path as the developed world. They can ‘tunnel’ their path to development through the use of alternative sources of energy and by improving the quality of their industry in terms of carbon capturing. Meanwhile the world’s poorest countries, most of which lie in Sub-Saharan Africa, also have to deal with the consequences of climate change. But these are very expensive and these nations do not have the money for it. So the developed nations will have to financially bear this responsibility to combat climate change.
• In Copenhagen, the Secretary of State of USA, Hillary Clinton, announced that her country is prepared to join other rich countries in raising $100 billion in yearly climate financing for poor countries by 2020. This statement is hypocritical and deceptive. Not surprising nevertheless, given the consistent role of USA in the current world order. The World’s Largest Economy is simply saying that it is not willing to cut down its emissions! It appears to be willing to throw some pittance away, but take note: all the money is not going to come from USA; it is only going to raise the amount. More realistically, the 27 countries of the EU had already pledged to pay £6.5 billion in the next three years; and UK had promised to pay £500 million annually to the developing countries.
• Does this amount seem huge to you? Remember, in 2008, within weeks of the beginning of global recession UK alone announced £500 billion towards its banks-bailout, and US pumped in nearly $800 billion!
In any case these are not long term solutions. For me, the real solution lies in redefining development and changing lifestyle. Therefore, as Christians we need to revisit our spirituality of simplicity.The Spirituality of the Essential
Jesus constantly invited his followers to simplicity of life. Renunciation was his clarion call to the disciples. You might say: Oh, Jesus never went to a supermarket; he could not even afford a horse! But within the socioeconomic situation of his day, Jesus challenged the wealthy to live simple lives. It was a call to freedom, and sensitivity to the needs of the poor.
In the Acts of the Apostles (chapters 2 and 4) the early Christians took this seriously. “They sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed” (Acts 2:45). When this ideal lifestyle was lost in the history of the Church in the 4th Century, religious life began as a radical form of living Christian life. Today, I think, religious poverty lived out radically can have greater significance in terms of its implication on the environment, constantly challenging the culture of consumerism. The simplicity of St Francis could give him a status of the citizen of the universe. He could sing the praise of the Lord together with the “brother sun and sister moon.” In a similar vein, St John of the Cross could sing: “Mine are the heavens and mine is the earth. Mine are the nations … And all things are mine.”
This religious ideal can be extended to our Christian life in what I call, ‘a spirituality of the essential’. On the one hand this spirituality is based on needs rather than wants. On the other hand, it implies that we are owners of none yet stewards of all. As pilgrims on this earth we are called by God to till the earth and to care for it. We do not own the earth; we look after it for the next generation. This spirituality of the essential calls for a simplicity of life. It is a counter-witness to the culture of consumerism, extravagance and the superfluous.
So what does this mean in daily life, even to the urban population of Africa? Consider the following examples:
If I can travel by public means, should I use the car?
When I can eat with one plate should I use more?
When I can manage with one bucket of water, should I empty the whole tank?
If I need just a cup of tea, should I end up boiling the whole kettle?
Perhaps the contemporary slogan of 3R’s could work (in the order of priority): Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Or, at least we Africans can define development in terms of ‘quality of life’ and not in mere imitation of the Western lifestyle.Sahaya G. Selvam, SDB
