We have one day left to save the pond

I write on the cusp of a new year. Married 44 years ago on New Year’s Eve, my wife, Nancy, and I are generally in a mood to celebrate. However, this year, I am worried.

As an undergraduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, my first academic advisor was Eugene Burdick, co-author with William Lederer of The Ugly American (1958). The book showed how, centered as the economic life of the U. S. and of other highly developed nations was, and is, on the production of weapons, missiles, and other technologies of mass destruction, we could not ignore or be passive regarding the military-industrial complex and its dominance of so-called aid to the poor world. The book contributed to my decision to concentrate on development studies, which in turn led me to serve with Crossroads Africa and the U.S. diplomatic corps, especially in the area of development.

In 1972, having shifted gears, I was well into my doctoral studies. Reading a book entitled Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome (a respected group of international bureaucrats, educators, and scientists) inspired me to give some talks and write articles on the theme, “God’s People in an Age of Scarcity.” I cited an old French riddle that described the predicament faced by humanity:

Let’s suppose you own a lake about a quarter of a mile across. Near the shore a variety of water lily is growing that has an unusual characteristic — it doubles in size every day. If the lily pads grow unchecked it will cover the pond in 30 days, blocking out all light and oxygen, blocking off other forms of life in the lake. For weeks, the lily seems small and you are busy, so you ignore it and go about your own business, deciding to deal with it when it covers close to half the pond. On what day will that be? On the 29th day, of course. You have one day left to save the pond.

We are now on day 29. The earthquake and tsunami that destroyed Japan’s Fukishima nuclear plant on March 11th of last year were reminders that, though the peak-oil crisis appears to have abated thanks to the discovery of new sources, we are dependent on resources that are indeed risky. We live on a planet of melting polar caps, dying forests, and endangered species. That Peter Kent (Canada’s representative to the Durban, South Africa climate change talks in December 2011) left — simply walked away — with no immediate political fall-out attests to how blind the public is to the task.

There is a close relationship between peace and ecological security. Several times, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has recognized this, for example, in 1970, when it recognized Norman Borlaug who was, at the time, based at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico City. In 2004, the Nobel committee recognized Wangari Maathai for her contribution to democracy, peace, and sustainable development; the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, she died last September.[1] In 2006, the Nobel committee cited Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank for their efforts to create economic and social development at the grass roots. In 2007, it recognized Al Gore, Jr., and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about human-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change. Most recently, it recognized three women activists: Leymah Gbowee and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia and Tawakkol Karman of Yemen. Each has promoted the economic development of their countries, notably the education and health of girls, many of whom suffer from malnutrition so that boys are fed.

Climate change deniers continue to have a potent political voice. In my view, they are a major threat to human survival. Changing the response to climate change, notably changing the dominant apathy of North Americans from one of neglect to action will be equivalent for our generation of the response of our parents after the defeat of Germany and Japan in World War II. (I am aware of the political intent of the Marshall Plan and other responses.) We must image a different kind of world and begin to walk in that direction.[2]

Indeed, many people around the world are already moving ahead to develop systems that maintain the integrity, balance, and health of the earth community. To the extent that FOR members can use our many connections to energize and organize people to develop new cultural patterns, we should do so to ensure we live in ways that are more peaceful and respectful of earth’s limits. Doing so, we will have contributed to ensuring that people live better lives in the future.

Living in Canada, I am aware that many of our thinkers have pointed us in the right direction. Margaret Atwood,[3] Stephen Lewis,[4] John Ralston Saul,[5] Bruce Sanguin,[6] and David Suzuki[7] (among others) urge that we replace consumerism, consumption, and capitalism with conversion (by which I mean changing to renewable energy sources), curtailment (by which I mean a reduction of life style), and community.

In North America, the dominant socioeconomic and cultural system encourages us to define our success, our very happiness, through how much we consume, how much we travel, how rich our diet, how big our house, how fancy our car, and on and on. On a finite planet (particularly with a population approaching 7 billion people), this system cannot be sustained, however seductive it is and however brilliantly we — Canada and the U.S.— export the model. Yet deep down, many now grasp that the consumer system is fatally flawed, making people fat and sick, shortening lives, increasing stress and social isolation, and wreaking havoc on the global and local environments. Nonprofit groups like the Fellowship of Reconciliation can help its membership relate to the earth in new ways, and from this will emerge a new ecological ethic that will help humanity to live more sustainability.

Our challenge is this: getting to the root human causation of climate change and related environmental problems. Are we up to it?