Respect Life Sunday Pastoral Letter – Care for Our Environment NZ Catholic Bishops Conference
Dear sisters and brothers in Christ – E te whānau whakapono a te Karaiti,
Pope Francis set October 2019 aside as an “Extraordinary Missionary Month” to help us all reflect on the missionary nature of the Christian life, and for each of us to consider anew what it means to be baptised and sent on mission. Reflecting on taking Christ’s message of healing and hope to the people, we might not think immediately about healing the environment as a missionary activity. But everything is interconnected.
Four years ago, Pope Francis wrote in his encyclical Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home about the necessity of hearing “both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor,” an insight beautifully expressed in this traditional Māori whakataukī:
Ka mate te whenua, ka mate te tangata. Ka ora te whenua, ka ora te tangata. If the Earth dies, the people die. If the Earth lives, the people live.
In the past year, this whakataukī has been given renewed vigour by the voices of young people taking on Pope Francis’ words in Christus Vivit #41: You “are meant to dream great things, to seek vast horizons, to aim higher, to take on the world, to accept challenges and to offer the best of yourselves to the building of something better” (Christus Vivit #15).
Pope Francis has explicitly acknowledged the prophetic actions of young people in his recent message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation:
Many young people all over the world are making their voices heard and calling for courageous decisions. They feel let down by too many unfulfilled promises, by commitments made and then ignored for selfish interests or out of expediency.
The young remind us that the Earth is not a possession to be squandered, but an inheritance to be handed down. They remind us that hope for tomorrow is not a noble sentiment, but a task calling for concrete actions here and now. We owe them real answers, not empty words, actions not illusions.
Young people of Aotearoa New Zealand, we acknowledge that you have been among those who have taken to the streets to articulate their dreams for the planet and to demand greater action to address the climate crisis we are facing. You have added your voices for a sustainable better future online, in print, and in person. You have demanded that we listen.
We see that many of you are practicing what you preach – reducing waste inside and outside the classroom; taking part in conservation projects; asking your schools and parishes to look at how we use energy.
You are challenging all of us to hear and support you; to recognise that all life on Earth – humans, animals, plants, and the rest of God’s creation – is threatened by the dangers of human induced climate change. You are holding us, together with decision-makers in government, civil society and the community, to account. You inspire us – and many others – to act.
We also acknowledge the voices of many others who care about God’s creation; individuals and groups of New Zealanders who have faithfully advocated over many decades for action to protect the environment – the voices of those of you who have witnessed, over your lifetimes, significant degradation of landscape, farms, gardens, waterways, and weather patterns in our land. And in our Pacific region, we hear the voices of the Bishops and communities of Oceania speaking out with urgency about the loss of land and communities due to rising seas, increasingly severe storms, and dying sea-life in our warming oceans.
Respect Life Sunday is a time when, traditionally, we have focused on those threats to human life that people face at the beginning and end of life. These threats remain real – New Zealand is currently facing the possibility of significant changes to abortion and euthanasia laws. However, we also recognise that our responsibility to protect life extends beyond those issues and that these issues are interwoven.
It is time for an “integral ecology” that recognises the connection between the cry of our most vulnerable and the cry of the Earth; an ecology that embraces the God-given dignity of all creatures; an ecology that responds to the effects of critical global warming seen in growing numbers of displaced refugees; an ecology that acknowledges that the roots of the environmental crisis lie in our rampant consumerism and a “throwaway culture” stemming from economic models that privilege certain people and certain stages of life; an ecology that addresses the marginalisation and exclusion of vulnerable persons, in particular at the beginning and end of life.
It is time to heed Pope Francis’ message for a fundamental lifestyle change.
For our part, we need to reflect more deeply as Bishops about the fundamental changes we need to make around such things as energy use in our churches and school buildings, and the transport choices we make around our parishes and dioceses. This reflection needs to happen alongside all Catholic parishes, organisations and communities. These matters are not just about good stewardship of our assets, but about good stewardship of the Earth as our common home.
Let us all be missionaries of healing and hope and offer the best of ourselves to the building of a better world. Together, young and old, we can, and must, save our planet, our people and all God’s creatures.
Living with Dystopia
Cristy Clark discusses the rise of eco-anxiety and eco-paralysis in the face of the climate and mass extinction crisis. Her concern is how we can maintain “real hope”: a hope grounded in critical thinking that acknowledges the current state of affairs while still inspiring us to work courageously towards the changes required.
This article was reprinted with permission from Eureka Street with the publisher’s kind permission. The full article is available here – https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/living-with-dystopia.
Greta Thunberg Will Save the World: A Response to Damien Grant
Emrys Jansen
One of today’s most influential climate activists is Greta Thunberg. At sixteen, she’s the founder of the #FridaysForFuture protest movement, and has spoken at parliaments, conferences, UN summits and even been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Not everyone is a fan. Aside from the climate change deniers and the politicians who feel threatened by Ms Thunberg’s impact, there are some people whose issues with Greta are less to do with what she’s saying than with who she is. Damien Grant’s article ‘Climate starlets solve nothing’ (published May 5, 2019) is a typical example1. I take exception to Mr Grant’s brand of ‘criticism’: factually incorrect, patronising and sexist. More than that, it has nothing to do with the actual issues. Some adults are intimidated by Ms Thunberg and the societal change she represents, and that’s a problem – not just for her, but for our future.
Mr Grant’s consistently incorrect characterisation of Greta Thunberg and her work shows that he knows very little about her. He misrepresents her motivations, her impact, and the challenges she has worked to overcome. Hardly one of the “dilettantes who have made climate change their defining issue,” Greta’s interest in climate change – or as she calls it, climate breakdown or climate emergency – is not fleeting or vapid. Greta is terrified. “I don’t want your hope,” she told the World Economic Forum at Davos. “I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.”2
And people are acting. Greta has inspired an EU proposal for hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change.3 Her Fridays for Future school strikes have drawn more than 1.4 million people in over a hundred countries.4 President Obama and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, among others, endorse her efforts.5,6 These are incredible achievements, for someone of any age, and they are all ignored by Mr Grant.
Furthermore, Greta knows that her role in this fight is more subtle than Mr Grant seems to grasp. She does not “parrot science she cannot understand” – as if it were impossible for teenagers to educate themselves on a topic they were passionate about. Rather, she highlights the facts that many people in power refuse to see, and puts them front and centre. She understands that we have the science and we know the solutions, but we lack the will to change. The climate fight isn’t fought on science anymore, but on behaviour and incentive. That’s what Greta is good at.
Mr Grant also thinks that “no-one is going to debate or even criticise [Greta] for fear of being labelled insensitive.” But that claim is just not true.7 Ms Thunberg has long been under attack from climate change deniers and far-right groups, mocking her youth, her Asperger’s, calling for her to “have a meltdown on national telly”8. Far from contributing anything to the vital discourse on climate breakdown, Mr Grant simply joins their number.
More problematic, though, than the technical issues with Mr Grant’s article are his premise and tone, which are frankly offensive. He also writes with a casual disregard for the credibility of women, for example dismissing the achievements of Lucy Lawless by way of a crass reference to her appearance in the show Xena: Warrior Princess. But while most people can now see that his casual misogyny is a Bad Thing™, we tend to struggle more with the idea that children can also make worthwhile contributions – that’s a significant problem too. In his first sentence Mr Grant calls Greta Thunberg “lass”. He only gets more patronizing from there, describing her as mimicking the characteristics of adulthood as “an old vaudeville routine”.
“It is a brilliant PR move to shove this schoolgirl onto the stage,” says Mr Grant. Who does he think is controlling, Ms Thunberg? Greta’s activism started when, at fifteen, she began her own solitary ‘school strike for climate’ outside the Swedish parliament every Friday. She convinced her family to go vegan and stop flying, and her parents listened to the evidence and arguments she brought – not the other way around. Is it so incomprehensible that an educated and eloquent sixteen-year old might be able to act for herself? What age do you have to be to be taken seriously?
“I’m old enough to remember when serious men in suits confronted the fact that scientists told us that CFCs were destroying the ozone hole,” says Mr Grant. Greta is young enough to pay the price for how slow that realisation was in coming. It was the serious men in suits who covered up climate change, who profited from it, and who still do today. But that is not a sustainable future.
There is no substance behind Mr Grant’s article other than taking poorly-researched shots at Greta. He doesn’t offer any other solutions or any “experts” we should turn to. “It’s fun to make fun of vanity activism,” says Mr Grant. What about vanity editorials? If anyone is trying to “eke out a few more moments of fame,” it’s not Greta Thunberg.
Why is it important to listen to our young people? For one, they bring new perspectives. A study published in Nature found that children are ideal climate ambassadors, as “unlike adults, their views on the issue do not generally reflect any entrenched political ideology.”9,10 Further, though, a person who is under eighteen is still a person. Is it inconceivable that they should be treated like one? But politically, we don’t want to hear children’s voices. We consider them less capable, less important – without the right to representation that being citizens of this country should afford them. That mindset pervades much of our society. But taking children seriously will empower them. If they learn they can have opinions, that their actions can make a difference, that those who bring evidence and arguments to the table will be offered respectful debate – then we’ll have a generation more capable of solving the environmental catastrophe we find ourselves in.
We need to challenge our assumptions on who can and cannot contribute. Preventing our fast-approaching environmental doom is an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ situation, and it’s reasonable to encourage those with the most at stake to pitch in.
I suggest that Mr Grant is intimidated by Greta Thunberg, and that’s symptomatic of a big problem. “There isn’t any reason to take Ms Thunberg seriously. Her arguments make [sic] as much sense as a certain Swedish chef …” But Greta has given us many reasons to take her seriously. It’s true, she doesn’t have any of the reasons that some people of Mr Grant’s mindset unconsciously look for: she’s not male and she’s not middle-aged. But it’s time to stop judging people’s contributions by these metrics.
I’m not much older than Greta. What I hear Mr Grant say is that my opinions have no weight, that my actions will not be taken seriously, and that my future is secondary to maintaining a status quo that silences too many voices. I reject his premise and his opinionated, poorly-worded insults. Greta Thunberg and people like her will save the world – or she and I will face the consequences.
Endnotes
1 Grant, Damien. “For the Sake of the Planet, Let’s Not Put Teen Climate Activist Greta Thunberg on a Pedestal.” Stuff, 5 May 2019, www.stuff.co.nz/ environment/112369771/for-the-sake-of-the-planet-lets-not-put-teenclimate-activist-greta-thunberg-on-a-pedestal.
2 Thunberg, Greta. “‘Our House Is on Fire’: Greta Thunberg, 16, Urges Leaders to Act on Climate.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Jan. 2019, www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/our-houseis-on-fire-greta-thunberg16-urges-leaders-to-act-on-climate.
3 Roth, Clare. “Swedish Student Leader Wins EU Pledge to Spend Billions on Climate.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 21 Feb. 2019, www.reuters. com/article/us-climatechange-teen-activist-idUSKCN1QA1RF?utm_ campaign=4d422b8969-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_02_21_01_46&utm_co ntent=5c6ec0934b73850001e27e12&utm_medium=email&utm_ source=Global Health NOW Main List&utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd4d422b8969-2890801.
4 Taylor, Matthew. “Latest Global School Climate Strikes Expected to Beat Turnout Record.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 May 2019, www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/24/latest-global-schoolclimate-strikes-expected-to-beat-turnout-record.
5 Obama, Barack. “They’re People like 16-Year-Old @GretaThunberg, Whose Protests at Swedish Parliament Sparked a Movement. Inspired by Greta’s Action, Fridays for Future Brought Together More than a Million Strikers on Every Continent Last Month to Demand Action on Climate. Https://T. co/un7nBhEF8i.” Twitter, Twitter, 22 Apr. 2019, twitter.com/barackobama/ status/1120411734316023809?lang=en.
6 Guterres, António. “The Climate Strikers Should Inspire Us All to Act at the next UN Summit | António Guterres.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 15 Mar. 2019, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/ mar/15/climate-strikers-urgency-un-summit-world-leaders.
7 Chakrabortty, Aditya. “The Hounding of Greta Thunberg Is Proof That the Right Have Run out of Ideas | Aditya Chakrbortty.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 May 2019, www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2019/may/01/greta-thunberg-right-environmentalactivist-attacks.
8 Dale, Helen. “Greta Thunberg’s Supporters Can’t Have It Both Ways.” The Spectator, 29 Apr. 2019, blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/greta-thunbergssupporters-cant-have-it-both-ways/.
9 Denworth, Lydia. “Children Change Their Parents’ Minds about Climate Change.” Scientific American, 6 May 2019, www.scientificamerican.com/ article/children-change-their-parents-minds-about-climate-change/.
10 Lawson, Danielle F., et al. “Children Can Foster Climate Change Concern among Their Parents.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 9, no. 6, 2019, pp. 458–462., doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3.
Wake Up to the Fierce Urgency of the Now
by Camilla Cockerton
“Our house is on fire!”, Swedish 16-year-old Greta Thunberg warned the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. 2“At places like Davos, people like to tell success stories. But their financial success has come with an unthinkable price tag.”
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: rising global temperatures (0.9° Celsius since the late 19th century); warming oceans (0.22°C since 1969); shrinking ice sheets; glacial retreat; decreased snow cover; global sea level rise (20.3 cms in the last century); declining Arctic sea ice; extreme weather events such as floods, storms, cyclones and droughts; and ocean acidification and the rapid bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef (30% more acidic than the industrial revolution).3 Effects are evident in New Zealand where glaciers have lost one quarter of their volume since 1977.4 The Franz Josef glacier abruptly changed directions in 2008 and entered a very rapid phase of retreat. If global warming continues at its current pace, the glacier will almost completely disappear.
As David Suzuki warns:
Human use of fossil fuels is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere; oceans are polluted and depleted of fish; 80 per cent of Earth’s forests are heavily impacted or gone yet their destruction continues. An estimated 50,000 species are driven to extinction each year. We dump millions of tonnes of chemicals, most untested for their biological effects, and many highly toxic, into air, water and soil. We have created an ecological holocaust. Our very health and survival are at stake, yet we act as if we have plenty of time to respond.5
What is causing climate change? Earth’s atmosphere consists of oxygen, a large amount of nitrogen and a small percentage of greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around the earth, trapping warmth from the sun and making life on earth possible. Without them, too much heat would escape and the earth’s surface would freeze. However, increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases causes the earth to heat up. Industry, agriculture and transportation, over the past 150 years, have dramatically increased greenhouse gas production.
Scientific evidence for the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a gathering of the world’s leading climate scientists, has warned that only 12 years remain to slow the earth’s rising temperatures to a maximum of 1.5°C and avoid catastrophic environmental breakdown.6 However, others criticize the IPCC reports as overly conservative, consistently understating the rate and intensity of climate change. The reports don’t include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas which will be released from the thawing Arctic permafrost.7
If atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 1,200 parts per million, climatecooling stratocumulus clouds shading much of the ocean could break up. This would push the earth’s climate over a tipping point (a critical threshold beyond which rapid climate changes cannot be reversed), a massive 8°C rise and potentially catastrophic warming.8
Dr Camilla Cockerton is an independent researcher. Her book Contested Migration: Tswana Women ‘Running Away’ from the ‘Land of the Desert’ was recently published by Palgrave- McMillan.
Endnotes
1 Yong Kim, J. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2015/11/15-quotes-on-climate-change-by-world-leaders/
2 ‘Our house is on fire’: Greta Thunberg, 16, urges leaders to act on climate. (2019, January 25). The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/our-house-is-on-fire-gretathunberg16- urges-leaders-to-act-on-climate
3 NASA. (2019). Climate change: how do we know? Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
4 Ministry for the Environment. (2017, October). Our atmosphere and climate 2017. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ environmental-reporting/our-atmosphere-and-climate-2017; The Climate Reality Project. (2016, June 21). Global warming’s evil twin: ocean acidification. Retrieved from https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/ global-warming-ocean-acidification
5 Suzuki, D. (2009). Acceptance speech. The Right Livelihood Award. Retrieved from https://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/speech/ acceptance-speech-david-suzuki/
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global warming of 1.5C: summary for policymakers. Switzerland: IPCC. Retrieved from https:// report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
7 Scherer, G. (2012, December 6). Climate science predictions prove too conservative. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www. scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-tooconservative/
8 Schneider, T., Kaul, C. & Pressel, K. (2019). Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming, Nature, 12, 163-167.
Editorial – Speaking Truth to Power: Youth Urge Action on Climate Change
by John Kleinsman and Camilla Cockerton
We are in the middle of the biggest crisis in human history and basically nothing is being done to prevent it.
Young voices around the world are calling out for urgent action on climate change. Swedish fifteen-year-old Greta Thunberg chastised world leaders at COP24, the recent UN climate conference in Poland. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, thousands of students recently marched on Parliament in solidarity with other students all over the world, voicing their protest at political inaction.
“For 25 years countless of people have stood in front of the United Nations climate conferences, asking our nation’s leaders to stop the emissions,” Greta told Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General in late 2018. “But, clearly, this has not worked since the emissions just continue to rise. So, I will not ask them anything. Instead, I will ask the media to start treating the crisis as a crisis. Instead, I will ask the people around the world to realize that our political leaders have failed us. Because we are facing an existential threat and there is no time to continue down this road of madness.”
Concerned about the environment as a child, Greta convinced her family to adopt a sustainable lifestyle. At the age of 11, she became ill, depressed, and stopped talking and eating. Her diagnosis included selective mutism, meaning that she only speaks when she feels it’s necessary. Now is one of those moments.
At COP24, Greta spoke bluntly and heartfully to world leaders – governments must treat climate change as a crisis and act while there is still time.
My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 15 years old. I am from Sweden. I speak on behalf of Climate Justice Now. Many people say that Sweden is just a small country and it doesn’t matter what we do. But I’ve learned you are never too small to make a difference. And if a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school, then imagine what we could all do together if we really wanted to.
But to do that, we have to speak clearly, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. You only speak of green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular. You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake. You are not mature enough to tell it like is. Even that burden you leave to us children. But I don’t care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.
Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money. Our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine can live in luxury. It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.
The year 2078, I will celebrate my 75th birthday. If I have children maybe they will spend that day with me. Maybe they will ask me about you. Maybe they will ask why you didn’t do anything while there still was time to act. You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.
Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope. We can’t solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis. We need to keep the fossil fuels in the ground, and we need to focus on equity. And if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, maybe we should change the system itself. We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again. We have run out of excuses and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people. Thank you.
How are those in power responding to Greta’s message? The degree of denial amongst the ‘adults in charge’ is well illustrated by those New Zealand principals who warned their students they would be marked “truant” if they participated in the March 15th rallies. Perhaps the most ironic comment of all came from the President of the Secondary Principals’ Association who was concerned about “student safety”! ‘Hello’, the ‘safety’ of these students (and future generations of students) is precisely what this is all about!
Around the world, it is students who have now taken on the role of being teachers to the rest of us. And it is those who fail to recognise the urgency of the crisis who are the real truants when it comes to climate change action!
Dr John Kleinsman is director of The Nathaniel Centre, the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre. Dr Camilla Cockerton is an independent researcher. Her book Contested Migration: Tswana Women ‘Running Away’ from the ‘Land of the Desert’ was recently published by Palgrave-McMillan.
Endnotes
1 Thunberg, G. (2018, December 3) Greta Thunberg’s speech to UN secretary general Antonio Guterres. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/wedonthavetime/greta-thunberg-speech-to-unsecretary- general-ant%C3%B3nio-guterres-362175826548
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkQSGyeCWg
We won’t save the Earth with a better kind of disposable coffee cup
Advocating a radical, systemic approach to the current environmental crisis, George Monbiot argues that we need to challenge the corporations that urge us to live in a throwaway society rather than seeking ‘greener’ ways of maintaining the status quo. It is not a case of ‘what should we use’ but ‘how should we live’.
This article is republished with the Permission of the Guardian. It is available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/06/save-earth-disposable-coffee-cup-green
Pope Francis on avoiding environmental catastrophe
In this article Bruce Duncan provides a brief summary of Laudato Si’, Pope Francis’ encyclical letter on the environment. He outlines some key features of the encyclical as well as providing an insight into Francis’ underlying approach to, and understanding of, what is described as an environmental and social crisis.
Available online at: http://www.cssr.org.au/justice_matters/dsp-default.cfm?loadref=656
This Changes Everything, Capitalism vs the Climate.
By Naomi Klein. Allen Lane, London. 2014.
Reviewed by Peter Healy
This is a comprehensive and timely book. Klein says in part one, “If there has ever been a moment to advance a plan to heal the planet that also heals our broken economies and our shattered communities, this is it.” In the introduction she says “this is the hardest book I have ever written because climate change puts us on such a tight and unforgiving deadline.”
This book is about our “climate moment” with all its challenges and opportunities. First, Klein says we have to stop looking away. We deny because we fear letting in the full reality of a crisis that changes everything. The need to change everything is not something we readily accept. If we are to curb emissions in the next decade we need a massive mobilisation larger than any in history.
The question is posed: What is wrong with us? What is really preventing us from putting out the fire that’s threatening to burn down our collective house? The global economy always takes centre stage. Market fundamentalsim has systematically sabotaged our collective responses. Our economic system and our planetary systems are at war. We are faced with a stark choice: “either we allow climate change to disrupt everything about our world or we change pretty much everything about our world to avoid that fate”.
Our “climate moment” is accompanied by what she calls a “fossil fuel frenzy”. A wild dig is going on in most nations on the planet, Aotearoa/NZ being no exception. Klein says, “We have become a society of grave robbers, we need to become a society of life amplifiers, deriving our energy directly from elements that sustain life. It’s time to let the dead rest.” Our most imporatant task now is to keep carbon in the ground.
To do all this a new worldview is required, “a project of mutual reinvention” has to be entered into. The door to 2 degrees of warming will close in 2017. We are in the midst of a civilisational wake-up call, coming to us in the language of fires, floods, droughts and extinctions. We are being called to evolve, and the point about a crisis this big is that it changes everything.
Wealthy nations need to start cutting emissions by 8-10 percent per yearstarting now. We need to get back to 1970’s consumption levels. Low consumptions activites like gardening and home cooking are good. Large corporations dodge regulations, and they refuse to change behaviours,their goal is to always expand their market share. Klein talks about addiction rather than innovation when it comes to new methods of extraction. The madness of “extractivism” is a relationship of taking with little care being given to regeneration and the future of life. As Klein says, the market economy and the fossil fuel economy emerged at about the same time. “Coal is the blank ink in which the story of modern capitalism is written.”
There are no messiahs. The green billionares will not save us, we have to change our lifestyles. Our most intoxicating narrative is that technology will save us, but this isa form of magical thinking.
The book has inspiring things to say about “Blockadia” a broadbased grassroots resistance movement intent on shaking the fossil fuel industry to the core. Indigenous peoples are key here, their rights can be a great gift for the revival and reinvention of the commons we all love. Blockadia asks the question, “How come that a big distant company can come to my land and put me and my kids at risk and never ask my permission?” The corporations come from far away and go everywhere because the fossil fuel industry is one of extreme rootlessness.
In chapter 13 of the book Klein talks about her attempts to have a child while researching this book. There are some lovely descriptions of Klein coming to realise that the earth is facing fertility challenges of her own. Many species are now up against “infertility walls” and finding it hard to reproduce. Fertility is one of the first functions to erode when animals are under stress.
The challenge for the climate movement hinges on pulling off a profound and radical economic transformation. In extraordinary historical moments “the usual category that divides “activists” and “regular people” become meaningless, the activists are quite simply everyone”.
So this book is for you and me and everyone. We are all implicated in everything this book is about, so get hold of it, read it and pass it around. Request your local library to purchase it. As a slogan at the recent climate march in New York said, “To change everything we need everybody.”
I found myself saying to someone the other day, “If any book will push us through and beyond the Great Transition that we all have to make, then this is it!” Along with the film that Klein’s partner is making on the same subject, we can take some hope. We still have our brief window of time. We are inventive and creative. We can join with the tangata whenua as guardians of Mother Earth.
Fr Peter Healy is a Marist priest who lives and works in Ōtaki
Christianity and the ecological crisis: ‘lament, hope and action’
Jonathan Boston
The following article is based on a sermon given by the writer on Sunday 7 October 2012 as part of the conference Christianity and the Ecological Crisis: Lament, Hope and Action.
Humanity is blessed to inhabit a planet of exquisite beauty, diversity, richness and wonder; a planet set within a cosmos of extraordinary scale, grandeur, splendor and mystery. Unsurprisingly, the first chapter of Genesis culminates with the firm proclamation that "God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Yet the nature of this goodness needs clarification. After all, creation is ongoing; it is in the process of becoming; it is not yet finished. New stars continue to be born; species continue to evolve. Further, cosmologists believe that the universe of which we are part will eventually end, possibly collapsing in upon itself in a so-called 'big crunch'.
In what sense, then, is God's creation ‘very good’? Saint Irenaeus of Lyons suggests we should think of goodness in terms of "that which is destined for perfection" (Gunton, 1998). From this perspective, the assessment of creation as being "very good" refers to the point when temporal history as we know it ends and the cosmos is renewed and redeemed by God - not replaced or done away with, incidentally. This belief in the eventual transformation of creation constitutes what the theologian Richard Bauckham (2012) refers to as our "ultimate hope". The self-giving of Christ and his bodily resurrection are signs of God’s deep concern with the material world and his commitment to its eventual transfiguration.
Whereas St. Paul talked of the ‘groaning’ of creation, today, viewed through the lens of evolutionary biology we would say that the natural world is characterised by competition, predation, violence and pain. Put bluntly, God's evolving creation is deeply ambiguous. There is great majesty, orderliness, cooperation, interdependence, productivity and thriving. Yet there is also extraordinary wastefulness, indifference, randomness, selfishness and brutality. The God who made this universe has made a world where there is the potential for colossal destruction and enormous harm.
Over the past 540 million years we know of at least five mass extinction events, that is, events where more than 50% of this planet's species were destroyed. We are now in the midst of a sixth great extinction event that is gathering pace. Whole ecosystems are being destroyed; whole ways of being lost forever. But what makes this latest mass extinction different from those of previous epochs is the cause. The reason lies not in massive volcanic activity or asteroid impacts, but the willful actions of human beings.
We are devastating the great tropical rain forests. We are polluting the waterways, lakes and oceans. We are destocking the oceans of fish. We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and warming the planet. We are eroding the fertility of our soils. We are draining the Earth of its precious supplies of fossil water and fossil fuels. We are borrowing from the future and leaving our grandchildren a dreadful legacy in the form of a huge ecological debt.
These claims are the studied conclusions of thousands of the world's best scientists. Thus far, their concerted pleas for humanity to change its ways have largely gone unheeded. As a result, the ecological crisis is deepening. Even with radical policy changes now, the legacy of the environmental damage we have wrought will be long and bitter. Much harm is now unstoppable. In short, we are living beyond our means.
To give but one example: recent scientific evidence suggests that global warming will cause the sea level to rise by as much as a metre by the end of this century, and many more metres in subsequent centuries. There is little we can now do to prevent this. Yet even a rise of one metre could displace over 150 million people globally.
There is thus much to lament. There is a sobering irony in the fact that the species who is wreaking such havoc is one who bears the image of God and ranks as the crowning pinnacle of this planet's 4.5 billion year journey. What might constitute a proper Christian response? Let me offer six quick reflections.
First, as Christians we must acknowledge the disturbing challenges that confront us. Humanity has the potential to eliminate much of the life on this planet - possibly all life. God has given us this remarkable freedom either to destroy or affirm His creation. There is neither place for complacency nor room for denial, avoidance, evasion or escapism. The path we follow should be informed by the best available evidence and guided by wisdom, prudence and precaution.
Second, we must avoid being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task ahead or paralysed by fear, foreboding or depression. We need to be constantly reminded of Jesus' comforting words when his disciples were fearful or anxious: “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid” (Matthew 14:27). God has not abandoned us. "Behold," Jesus said, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
Third, we should not be presumptuous. We should not expect God to save us from our folly. We cannot lay waste to countless ecosystems or destabilise the planet's climate system without suffering the consequences. God calls us to exercise intelligent, responsible stewardship, to protect the natural order.
Fourth, we should avoid an improper faith in the power of technology to save us from the perils that lie ahead. We cannot change the basic laws of nature. There are real biophysical limits within which we must live. We who are Christians should not delay in making the required policy and lifestyle changes on the basis that ‘something will turn up’ or that ‘science will save us’. We have no right to pass the buck to future generations.
Fifth, the unfolding ecological crisis should not be welcomed - whether on the basis that it signals the imminent return of Christ or on the grounds that previous mass extinctions have led, albeit only after millions of years, to a new flowering in the long evolutionary journey of our biosphere. There is nothing good about destroying countless species or degrading this planet's life-support systems. It needs to be stopped.
Finally, our efforts to conserve, heal and restore God's creation will never be in vain. Nor should we value our efforts simply on the basis of the progress, or lack thereof, that we can see. Doing what is right is important and valuable, regardless of the apparent outcome. When Paul remarks that "our labour in the Lord will not be in vain" (1 Cor 15:58), he does not imply that our strivings will inevitably lead to an improvement in our current circumstances. Rather, that they “will have effects that will be preserved in the new creation" (Bauckham, 2012).
This is where faith is crucial. We worship a God who has entered our history, embraced the life of humanity, and triumphed over the forces of darkness. This God is faithful and full of grace. Hence, as Rowan Williams has put it, "we have to say, as believers, that the possibility of life is never exhausted within creation: there is always a future.
The ecological crisis today confronts each of us with a choice. What kind of legacy will we leave for future generations? Will we live in a way that honours rather than threatens the planet? Will we show a reverence for the whole of life and respond to God's summons to demonstrate responsibility? Or will we continue to create a scarred and impoverished planetary wasteland? God has given us this choice.
A full transcript of the original sermon with complete references is available on request.
Jonathan Boston is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies in the School of Government at the Victoria University of Wellington.
References:
Bauckham, R. (2012) "Ecological Hope in Crisis?" John Ray Initiative, JRI Briefing Paper No. 23.
Gunton, C. (1998) The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press).
Williams, R. (2009) "The Climate Crisis: Fashioning a Christian Response", 13 October.
Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Issue 2, November 2000
The submission of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.
Book Review - Judgement day: The struggle for life on earth
Susan Wilson offers a thoughtful critique of Paul Collin's new book, Judgement day: The struggle for life on earth, in which he reflects on human responsibility for the many ecological crises we face.
Biofuels - a burning issue
Martin de Jong
Issue 32, November 2010
Biofuels are being embraced worldwide as a renewable alternative to finite fossil fuels, while also generating less carbon emissions than conventional fuels. But is the enthusiasm misguided – and what principles should be borne in mind when considering their production and use? Production of some biofuels may be more polluting than fossil fuels, when considering greenhouse gas emissions over the complete production cycle. There is also clear evidence that large-scale conversion of land to grow fuel crops has impacted food prices and availability, and is affecting people's livelihoods and way of life in significant parts of the world.
"God, meet Synthia. Synthia, this is God."
John Kleinsman
Issue 31, August 2010
The creation of the first life form with a totally synthetic genome, affectionately dubbed "Synthia," has generated huge interest. While some would claim that J. Craig Venter and his team have mimicked the creation of life rather than originating something new, there is no doubt that it represents, as Julian Savulescu puts it, "a step towards something more controversial: [the] creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved." [1] Savulescu has also noted that while the potential for good is real and significant, even though far in the future, "the risks are also unparalleled." [2]
"It's life Jim but not as we know it."
Rev Dr Graham O'Brien - On behalf of the Interchurch Bioethics Council
Issue 31, August 2010
In May 2010 scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute announced the creation of the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell, however claims that the Venter team had created new life are an over exaggeration (CNN: "Scientists Create a Living Organism.") What the scientists have done is to make a synthetic copy of a bacterial genome - the 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides - and insert this into another bacterium Mycoplasma capricolum , resulting in a self-replicating cell controlled solely by the synthetic genome - effectively turning Mycoplasma capricolum into Mycoplasma mycoides. The result is the culmination of 15 years of research and marks a significant development in our understanding of how DNA controls cellular growth and also represents the construction of the largest synthetic molecule of a defined structure.
Synthetic Life: Playing God? No, Not Yet.
John France
Issue 31, August 2010
The physical and biological characteristics of nearly all living organisms are largely determined by the genes possessed through inheritance from both parents, though some simple organisms including most bacteria have only a single parent. Genes consist of paired strands of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) linked in a coiled double helix and are commonly packaged in structures called chromosomes and located in the nucleus of a cell. Together, they constitute the genome of the individual. Recently, J. Craig Venter (a genome researcher) and his 23 collaborators reported the design, synthesis and assembly of a new subspecies of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides. This remarkable achievement, attracting attention worldwide, was the first time an organism had come into being with an artificial genome in place of an inherited one, that is, it was a synthetic life form. In their paper in the May 20th online issue of Sciencexpress, the researchers describe how they created a cell containing a chromosomal genetic system in which the DNA had been chemically synthesized in sequences designed by a computer programme based on published gene sequences of M. mycoides. This cell exhibited the expected observable characteristics (phenotype) and was capable of continuous self-replication.
Editorial: Bioethics and Politics: The Axing of the Bioethics Council, Toi te Taiao
Michael McCabe
Issue 27, April 2009
The recent axing of the Bioethics Council – Toi te Taiao – by the National Government is a matter of regret and real concern.
ERMA and Ethical Issues
Nathaniel Centre Staff
Issue 16, August 2005
On 1 July 2011, the Government announced the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as a Crown agent responsible to the Minister for the Environment, incorporating all of the functions and powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).
The Environmental Risk Management Agency (ERMA) recently established an Ethics Advisory Panel to assist in dealing with ethical aspects of applications made to ERMA under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act).
Xenotransplantation: A Spiritual Perspective
John Kleinsman
Issue 15, April 2005
Xenotransplantation is defined as the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another. In the wake of a worldwide shortage of organs, and transplant waiting lists that will continue to accelerate due to an aging population, animals are being seen as offering a potentially unlimited supply of organs and tissues.
Toi te Taiao: Use of Human Genes in Other Organisms
Nathaniel Centre Staff
Issue 14, November 2004
Earlier this year Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council undertook a process of dialogue with New Zealanders on the cultural, spiritual and ethical issues arising from the use of human genes in other organisms. The process involved using focus groups to identify the issues, followed by a programme of dialogue meetings and 12 hui, an online dialogue process and written submissions. The Council presented its report to the Minister for the Environment, Marion Hobbs, in August.
Ethical Criteria Outlined for Use of Genetically Modified Organisms
Nathaniel Centre Staff
Issue 10, August 2003
Vatican Official Urges Respect for Biodiversity
VATICAN CITY, AUG. 18, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Recourse to genetically modified organisms calls for proof of their usefulness as well as a verification of the risks involved, says a Vatican official and expert on the matter.
Given the debates within the Catholic world on the subject, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and director of the Bioethics Center of Rome's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, spoke on a recent program on Vatican Radio.
"First of all," the bishop said Aug. 5, "there must not be blind opposition to man's intervention on plants and animals in the genetic field, when the latter does not cause harm and is useful to man himself."
Second, there must be scientific verification of "the risks ... both on the natural and pharmaceutical products as well as on the genetically modified organisms themselves," he said.
"It is the verification of the risk, the so-called principle of precaution. Until now no very serious risks have been reported. I think that progress is being made with due caution, with a kind of experimentation before introducing these products in the market," Bishop Sgreccia said. In this connection, he added that it is necessary to respect the "ecological balance, namely, respect for biodiversity." "The new species must not supplant the pre-existing ones," he said. "Biodiversity must be safeguarded in the world, as it is wealth for all."
"In the third place, the citizen must be informed," namely, when these products are commercialized they must have a "label," the Vatican official said. He added that the introduction of genetically modified organisms must respect "the economic ethic at the international level."
In other words, "genetically modified products must not serve for the exclusive use of enterprises, of great industries," the bishop said. "Industries must benefit from a just profit, but must not be turned into a monopoly which becomes a serious burden for those needing to take recourse to these products."
"The question on biotechnologies, moreover, must not be used with protectionist objectives," he said. The bishop explained that there "must be a balance, respect for the ethical concerns of the market, not only for the ethical concerns of health."
In a word, according to Bishop Sgreccia, the key lies in harmonizing "science -- with its undoubted capacity to develop, to verify objectives truths of an experimental character -- and ethics, which must relate the resources of the sciences to human values and persons, which must be at the center."
When addressing the Ministerial Conference on Biotechnology, held in Sacramento, California, in June, Archbishop Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, explained that the Holy See is gathering information on the problem in order to develop "a clear view on the use of GMOs."
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 2003
Nathaniel Centre Staff
In May 2000, the government established the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. In its report (July 2000) the Royal Commission made many recommendations, most of which were accepted by the government. The government has since introduced a Bill into Parliament called the "New Organisms and Other Matters (NOOM) Bill" covering a range of issues in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It proposes amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 (47 clauses), the Medicines Act 1981 (8 clauses) and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997(3 clauses).
The Genetic Symphony
Nathaniel Centre Staff
Issue 10, August 2003
"The return of Ludwig! 'A Further Feast of Beethoven' was again highly successful in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Of the many letters and emails received there was one from a young newcomer to symphony concerts that summed up the power of the music: "I was full of cold and nearly didn't go, but I'm glad I made the effort – it was just great. Wilma was fantastic (Romances). Saturday night was great as well. I have to say the best piece was Symphony No 9. It was absolutely stunning. I can't believe he was deaf when he wrote it. Unbelievable! I can't say enough about it. I was spellbound. When I looked at the programme and saw it was 67 minutes long I thought 'oh, my goodness'. But the time just flew by. I had tears in my eyes during the third movement. And the drums in the second movement were fantastic. I was still talking to myself about the night long after I got home. Incredible..." [1]
The Genetic Engineering Debate
Dr Neil Vaney
Issue 7, August 2002
The Biblical meaning of the Land
The Old Testament is a story of the gift of good land and the loss of that land. At the start of the first millennium before Christ, the sacred writer reflected on the history of tribal squabbles, of migration and of conquest out of which the Jewish nation was born. From the first he saw it as a story of disharmony between men and women, between shepherd and farmer. Interwoven in this story was the battle of the people to find good soil and become rooted in it.
Xenotransplantation: A Summary of the Theological and Anthropological Aspects
Issue 6, April 2002
From the report of the Pontifical Academy for Life
Prospects for Xenotransplantation: Scientific Aspects and Ethical Considerations
1. Human intervention in the created order
The account of creation in Genesis lays out the hierarchy among creatures, which can also be deduced from the transcendent dignity of the human person. Our right to intervene in the created order and modify some of its aspects is derived from an understanding of the position of human beings at "the centre and at the summit" of the created order. God placed human beings in this position, not only because everything that exists is intended for them, but because woman and man have the task of co-operating with the Creator in leading creation to its final perfection.
It is not a case of human beings "lording it over" other creatures. It is the right and duty of human beings, "according to the mandate from the Creator and never against the natural order established by him, to act within the created order and on the created order, making use of other creatures in order to achieve the final goal of all creation: the glory of God and the full and definitive bringing about of the Kingdom", through the promotion of the human person.
2. The use of animals for the good of human beings
As creatures, animals have their own intrinsic value which must be recognized and respected. However they were placed by God at the service of human beings, to assist in human development and progress. Human beings have always used animals to meet their needs, for example, in the provision of food and clothing, and to assist with work. The manner in which animals have been used has varied according to different stages of civilization. Xenotransplantation is a totally new type of service of animals to human beings, but as a service it is not in conflict with the created order.
There are two opposing points of view about the use of animals to improve human health or survival. At one extreme is the belief that animals and humans have equal dignity. At the other extreme is the belief that animals can be used by humans without regard to ethical considerations. In the Catholic tradition human beings have a unique and higher dignity than animals, but humans must also answer to the Creator for the manner in which animals are treated. This means that the sacrifice or use of animals can only be justified when it provides an important benefit for humans. Xenotransplantation is considered to be such a benefit. However unnecessary animal suffering is to be avoided; there must be a real need for the procedure; and genetic modification used as part of the process must not alter biodiversity and the balance of species.
In terms of the acceptability of xenotransplants, Catholic theology does not preclude the use of animal organs in humans. If personal identity is not affected by the transplant, the acceptability of xenotransplantation is determined by cultural and psychological factors.
3. Xenotransplantation and the identity of the recipient
In addition to the two theological issues outlined an evaluation of xenotransplantation must include measuring it against the findings of philosophical anthropology, especially those that relate to personal identity. Does the introduction of an animal organ into the human body modify a person's identity and the "rich meaning of the human body"? To what extent is such modification acceptable?
Personal identity is the relationship of an "individual's unrepeatability and essential core" to his/her being a person (on the ontological level) and feeling that he/she is a person (psychological level). These characteristics are expressed in the person's historical dimension and, in particular, in the thinking and communicative structures of the head.
Personal identity constitutes a good of the person, and is an intrinsic quality of an individual's very being. As such it is a moral value, and there is a right and duty to promote and defend the integrity of the personal identity of every individual. The integrity of personal identity therefore provides an ethical limit to the degree of change which xenotransplantation may be allowed to bring about in the human recipient of an animal organ. Some organs are primarily functional, whereas others have a strong personal symbolism or are intimately linked to the identity of the person. The specific functions of the brain and reproductive organs link them indissolubly to personal identity, and therefore xenotransplantation involving these organs can never be morally legitimate. The acceptability of xenotransplants of other organs with strong personal symbolism will depend upon the subjective response of the individual, and need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The full report can be found on the website of the Pontifical Academy for Life
Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification : A Via Media
Anne Dickinson and Michael McCabe
Issue 4, August 2001
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has recommended that New Zealand should "preserve its opportunities and keep its options open" and that "it would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer, but we should proceed carefully, minimizing and managing risks."
The approach taken by the Royal Commission could be described as a "Via Media", that is, a middle way, the path of wisdom and balance. This approach reflects that taken by the Catholic Bishops' Conference in their submission to the Commission. The Report shows that balancing individual rights and interests with the greater good of society is no easy task, especially with regard to agriculture and horticulture.
New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference Oral Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Issue 3, April 2001
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has recently completed fourteen weeks of formal hearings, with some 330 "interested parties" having presented written submissions and appeared before the Commission. Public meetings, regional Hui and a meeting with young people been held and some 10,000 written submissions received from the general public. The Commission now has the substantial task of analysing what it has received, and determining the directions for New Zealand with respect to the use of genetic modification.
On 22 February 2001, Bishop Peter Cullinane, Father Michael McCabe and Anne Dickinson appeared before the Royal Commission to discuss the written submission made by the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference. Before answering questions from the Commission they presented the following oral submission.
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: Not the Whole Answer?
Nathaniel Centre Staff
Issue 1, August 2000
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has begun work on the huge task of inquiring into and reporting on the strategic options available to New Zealand with respect to genetic modification. This work is to be completed by June 2001. The Commission has four members: Sir Thomas Eichelbaum (Chair), Dr Jean Fleming, Rev Richard Randerson, and Dr Jaqueline Allan. A voluntary moratorium on all applications for release and (with some exceptions) field testing of genetically modified organisms for the duration of the Royal Commission is being negotiated between Government and affected groups.
Genetically Modified Foods: Some Issues
Sharron Cole
Issue 1, August 2000
In its simplest terms, genetically modified food is food from plants which have had their genes altered in a laboratory. These modifications might confer resistance to insect, viral or fungal pests. They might foster herbicide resistance, meaning that weeds can easily be killed by spraying standing crops with the herbicide to which they (and not the weeds) are resistant. Finally, they can improve taste, colour, shelf life and the overall quality of a product.