Hello friendsš
I may be new to the climate space, but in the short year of exploring roles and opportunities Iāve learnt that even collectively, the human race can be viewed as a living, breathing organism. One that evolves with and through crisis. The environmental catastrophes weāre currently facing is the litmus test of our morality; a morality that pulses with the same intensity as a runnerās heart. How will the human race respond as a whole? What moral system will emerge victorious?
So far, Iāve perceived the space as an intricate web that approaches the crisis from a variety of angles, from green-tech to eco-spirituality. Some seem more feasible than others; and if Iām being honest, Iām not sold on the āconsumer responsibilityā narrative. This week, news broke that celebrities use private jets excessively. The report stated that planes affiliated with celebrities emitted an average of more than 3,376 metric tons of CO2 ā roughly 480 times more than an average personās annual emissions.
I thought the meme below captured the futility of the āconsumer responsibilityā narrative pretty well.
I believe the way forward is with systemic change. Specifically, I advocate for the dismantling of energy infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels. Proponents of this narrative believe it can be achieved by divesting from current and future fossil fuel projects, and instead, re-directing funds towards renewable energy. The question here is āwill we be able to accomplish this?ā
Frankly, Iām a little pessimistic. Over the weekend I was over at a friendās apartment. With soft music playing and a glass of whisky in hand, we ruminated over the dilemma of energy distribution. The premise went as follows: considering that energy is a finite commodity, will you allocate it towards new technology ā like blockchain ā or reduce overall consumption so that utility prices can be affordable for the most vulnerable?
A friend was quick to quip āIām team NFTā, in reference to the blockchainās latest sensation. NFTs, as the argument went, was an incredible advancement in the art world because it empowered both the artist and buyer. āThe artistā, another friend added, āwould be able to earn even as the piece of digital art was distributed from one owner to the next, and future buyers could buy with confidence because of how the block chain verified the artās authenticity.ā
āThe climate crisis will solve itselfā, team NFT concluded, ābut NFTs will greatly benefit everyoneā.
I was surprised by this dismissal.
Surely he couldnāt mean everyone; and surely he couldnāt mean any more than, say, affordable utilities so that everyone can have heat in the winter?
I know itās poor taste to take my peerās words at face value, yet I canāt help but suspect that his off-the-cuff response was telling of a certain moral position. The dichotomy was merely a rhetorical tool to highlight the indifference of the wealthy. It affirmed the suspicion I highlighted in an earlier entry: no oneās really concerned. What symptoms of the crisis would make him reconsider? Ever-increasing heatwaves and incompatible infrastructure? Floods? Energy and food insecurity? Heightened prices at the pump?
Replace any of the above issues and with āinflated utility pricesā and you arrive at the same dichotomy. Ultimately the question is: do we prioritise the most vulnerable or does a small subset of the global population have the privilege of advances in technology at the expense of the most vulnerable?
I know my answer, yet also recognise there is nothing to compel team NFT and many others like him to have compassion for the poor. I would contend, even, that pursuing self-interests are only natural in the absence of authoritative morality. Without God, what would compel me to serve the needs of others above my own?
Some may say itās too pessimistic ā too authoritative or restrictive, as it were āfor a modern-day individual to be limited by antiquated doctrines. Others may say, āletās leave the climate work for the compassionate and altruistic. Surely humanity has enough goodness in itself to rectify all its wrongs?ā
Well, not quite. Let me put forth the case of Sidney and Beatrice Webb. In the late 19th century they were key players in Britain because they were activists and were essentially the authors of the British social welfare structure. They were people of great compassion.
Like many intellectuals, Sidney and Beatrice started off in the church but then they got rid of Christianity ā abandoned it in their adult years. They saw it as too negative; too pessimistic. But near the end of her life Beatrice Webb wrote something quite remarkable. She wrote:
āIn my diary in 1890 I found this entry, where I wrote āI have staked all on the essential goodness of human natureā. But now 35 years later I realised how permanent are the evil impulses and instincts in us, and how little they seem to change. Like the greed for wealth or power. And mere social machinery will never change that.
We must ask better things from human nature, but will we get a response? And without this, how will we get better social institutions? No amount of knowledge or science will be of any avail unless we can curb the bad impulse. And can this be done without the faith in authoritative ethics associated with a spirit of love?
I know this may sound like I am advancing the case of the theism, and while I do profess Christianity, my intention is to highlight the need of some morality to guide our collective decision making. Whatever value you prescribe to morality is, for the time being, up to you.
Iāll end with this. Earlier this week the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, posted this tweet:
In July, The Guardian published a report: Oil sectorās āstaggeringā $3bn-a-day profits for the last 50 years. āVast sums provide power to ābuy every politicianā and delay action on climate crisisā, the sub-header read.
One can only hope that our leaders are truly convicted by this moral principle; that profit should not come before the lives of the poor. One can only hope that in the face of exorbitant amounts of money, the moral resolve for justice remains steadfast. As with Beatrice Webb, I believe this can only be achieved through a doctrinal spirit of love.
Without a spirit of love, the climate movement means nothing. Without a spirit of compassion, we will only further selfish and greedy agendas. Without a fundamental sense of morality, we will all surely perish.
ā
Thanks for reading!
Loveā¤ļø,
Daniel