As I write this blog the negotiators at the COP 21 talks are attempting to come to an agreement. They are motivated by both the projections of future environmental disasters and the realization that this has already started. The stated cause is the rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) that are being poured into the atmosphere by modern civilization. The solutions being proposed are high technology: photovoltaic cells, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, increased hydroelectricity, and yes, nuclear power. The list of high technological actions includes carbon capture: which burns fossil fuel, captures the carbon dioxide and then pumps the carbon dioxide back in to the ground with the intention that it stay there … well … long enough.
It would seem that Paris is faced with a dichotomy: climate catastrophe or technological nirvana. There are two problems with this dichotomy. First, it is a false dichotomy, and second, the future being proposed is no nirvana.
There is a third way: change our lifestyles so that we are more in harmony with the needs of the Earth. This web site is dedicated to that third way. This way does not reject technological progress, but rather sees it as one tool among many for our living in harmony.
One simple change that has a major impact on climate change would be for each of us to move closer to a more vegan lifestyle. In 2006, the United Nations issued a statement about our love affair with beef and dairy products. “Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation …” (Here is the link). The Union of Concerned Scientists came to a similar conclusion, with suggestions how to minimize the impact. (Here is the link). Simply put: don’t eat beef or dairy products. There are other changes we can make to the way we live that minimize our impact on the environment which we will cover in subsequent blogs.
The solutions that are being proposed replace the fossil fuel industry by a new “green industry.” A great example is the solar roof top industry. There is place for solar roof top solar and it can be a helpful addition to the climate change arsenal. This strategy replaces one industry (gas companies) by another (roof top solar manufacturers). In so doing, the stability of the current economic system is maintained. The replacement of coal fired electric plants by off shore wind farms is another example of replacing one industry by another, maintaining the stability of the economic system. Exxon’s economic sin was not that it produced fossil fuels, but that it did not use the profits to purchase a dominant share in the green technology! Behind these solutions is a faith that we can solve ecological problems through technical innovation and then create the corporations necessary to implement these solutions.
The last 100 years have given us technological marvels in a seemly never-ending parade of advances. There is a faith, that seems natural, that if we only have enough talented, funded people working on the problems that they will be solved. This is an attractive vision where our standard of living can go on increasing forever and ultimately will include the entire population of the planet. It is the positive vision of science fiction where the city of tomorrow has limitless energy, no limits on food production, unlimited transportation, and all material want is eliminated. This is an almost narcotic eschatological vision that worships human ability to overcome all obstacles.
The problem with such visions is that humans will not be able to harness unlimited energy. It requires energy to grow food, manufacture material objects (like cell phones), and power the vehicles that transport humans and material goods. So, such a vision is fatally flawed. Such a vision is a form of idolatry: a faith in the unlimited possibility of human ingenuity.
Why then do our leaders, including those in Paris, seek to assure us that such a vision is a viable future? Corporate capitalism requires exponential growth. Companies are judged by their percentage of growth. The solution to the climate crisis involves the developed countries consuming less, and that is a threat to every business that views its success in term of how fast they are growing. Ultimately, the world cannot sustain 7,300,000,000 people living at the United States standard of material wealth and energy consumption. It is quite probable that the United States will not be able to maintain its current per capita energy consumption in a sustainable manner without destroying much of the environment within the United States. (I will explore the reasons for this statement in future blog entries.)
The future however, need not be that of an apocalyptic nightmare. The bright future will however require that we rethink what we mean by “the good life.” A life that places a larger value of living in harmony with the Earth, being in community with our neighbors (including non-human neighbors), and working toward a future where material wealth is secondary to spiritual and relational health. This is ancient wisdom that we have forgotten.