Finding freedom through collective and individual responses to climate change (Part 2)

Author: Scott Schang

Internalizing and Practicing Climate Change Law

Precepts are meaningful only if we internalize them and reflect them in our actions, words and thoughts. Mindfulness is critically important in this step as well, as it allows us to be aware of the effects of following or not following the precepts, of what the precepts mean as we live them, and of ways in which we can support others on the path. This process of translating goals into action is one of the most wonderful things about Engaged Buddhism in that it calls on us not just to embrace the ideals of Buddhism but to live them.

Looking to one's own behavior first

A practitioner cannot be an authentic voice in the Sangha if his own practice is weak; people in the community will see the lack of solidity. Similarly, nations and individuals are unlikely to be effective at bringing about change if they do not first have their own houses in order.

Individual behavior is a critical element of addressing climate change. In the United States, 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are directly attributable to individual actions.'1 To blame companies alone for climate change is to misunderstand the contribution to global warming of individuals' everyday decisions about how they live. Education and mindfulness again serve as the most important tools so that people can become aware of the environmental consequences of their decisions. When a Frenchman buys a bottle of water instead of drawing water from the tap, how much energy and resources were consumed to create the bottle, transport the bottle and water, stock and sell them, and dispose of the bottle? We have no idea and therefore arc likely to be unaware of the greenhouse gas emissions and resources used in this simple choice. Labeling products so people can understand the ecological footprint of the products they consume is one approach to promoting mindfulness.

Another method is to apply the 'toxic release inventory' concept to the personal level. Many companies in the United States are required to report their annual emissions of toxic substances. One law professor has suggested that people maintain their own inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions and report it publicly. Yet another option is to price the environmental services we receive from our planet into the products we consume. The cost of an item then sends information to the consumer about the real cost of the item instead of using the Earth's resources for free. No matter what method used, being mindful of the effects of our decisions is essential to creating effective climate change laws.

As individuals examine and address their own contributions to the climate crisis, they can speak with a more authentic voice to political leaders about local, state, national and international efforts. To ask that others address a problem before we have looked into our own hearts is problematic. Some have suggested that the United States will not be ready to agree to an international climate regime until domestic climate legislation is in place. Bringing an international limit on U.S greenhouse gas emissions to the United States Congress for implementation did not work with the Kyoto Protocol, and it is unlikely to work with subsequent agreements. In addition, how can the United States ask developing nations to agree to emissions reductions when she has not been willing to do the same and when she has emitted persistent greenhouse gas emissions for 150 years that are a major cause of our existing predicament?

The Path is the Solution

Colleagues and I recently met with a delegation of environmental NGO leaders from China to discuss environmental issues. We mostly discussed traditional environmental concerns, such as air and water pollution and working conditions for coal miners. At the end of the discussion, the party representative traveling with the delegation said that in China, the people care most about economic improvement, and that environmental concerns are secondary to them. He noted that per capita U.S. greenhouse gas emissions arc far higher than China's, even though China's overall greenhouse gas emissions have likely already exceeded U.S. emissions (no one, including the Chinese government, knows for sure what China's emissions are). He said that China had to continue with its economic progress and that to support this, it must continue to build hundreds of new coal-fired power plants that will emit huge quantities of greenhouse gases. Any solution to climate change from these gases would have to be left to technological innovation. I could only respond that Americans' plans for addressing their climate emissions were little different, although the American public seemed to be increasingly willing to tackle climate even at an economic cost.

How does the world respond to a Chinese worker's rightful desire to be lifted from poverty? How does the world respond to an American's fear that climate change legislation will cost him his job, reduce his lifestyle, and end the cherished 'American Dream' that his children will be better off than he was? There is no single correct answer to these questions, only the right process of educating people about the causes and consequences of climate change and engaging in compassionate dialogue so that the communities can make the best decisions about how to address it. In particular, we must look deeply at our understanding of what it means to prosper economically, for our children to have better futures, and whether the developed nation lifestyle is a promise to work towards or a plague to avoid.

To many, this answer feels unsatisfactory because there is much urgency in addressing climate change. I share that frustration. That sense of urgency can be used to channel our energies towards making sure the process is implemented and followed, but there is no effective replacement for this process just as a practitioner must follow the path. Imposing a solution on people that is not organic and does not reflect their understanding is likely to cause discord and unlikely to be effective. Discussions about best approaches to climate change at the international level are robust at the moment, if slow and frustrating. That is the nature of building a just, democratic, civil, and sustainable society.

Approaching Climate Change Law as a Community

Any practitioner who takes the precepts alone and then seeks to implement them by herself soon discovers the futility of this exercise. 1 was drawn to Buddhism in part because the Buddha attained enlightenment by following his own path. 1 failed to appreciate the degree to which the Buddha had been supported by his community, however. While we do have to learn, understand and express the Dharma on our own terms, we benefit greatly from the experience of our Sarigha brothers and sisters to correct potential misunderstandings and to share tools and insights with us. Being with our community opens our hearts and helps us to understand the ultimate goal of the path is to lift all beings, not just ourselves, from the clinches of suffering.

Successful solutions to climate change should embrace this understanding of collective support and reinforcement. No nation can solve climate change on its own. To the contrary, only if all nations agree on a collective plan of action can climate change law be effective. Given the high degree of interconnectedness of the world economy, transferring production of an item from a developed nation where costs are high to a developing nation where costs are low may well result in greater greenhouse gas emissions if the object is produced using methods that are less energy efficient. Thus, it is critically important that the international community act to help all nations meet their climate objectives and discuss how to assist in this effort. If a nation is not meeting its obligations, then it is the duty of the sister nations to help this nation see its shortcomings. To help with this, information must be made freely available about progress among the various nations. The fact that we do not know the amount of greenhouse gases coining from many countries shows how far we have to go.

The Role of Deep Listening and Compassionate Dialogue

Engaged Buddhism teaches the importance of using Right Speech to avoid judging and condemning others. When striving for a goal in which we believe very much, there is a high risk that self-righteousness will infect our view and that we will judge and criticize others. Compassionate dialogue and deep listening are important tools taught by the Buddha that can help us understand disparate viewpoints and avoid causing people who disagree with us from becoming entrenched and unyielding in their own willingness to discuss topics. Thus, it is critical to recognize and accept that each nation and individual has a somewhat unique set of circumstances surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and will have different approaches to them.

Discussion of environmental issues in the United States has been highly polarized for at least the past fifteen years. There is little meaningful dialogue on the major environmental issues, with each side charging the other of being disingenuous and attempting to mislead the public. As a result, the public is conflicted between wanting environmental improvement yet not knowing the best path to achieving it. There has been no major revision to American federal environmental law since 1990, which is a sad reflection on the state of American environmental law.

The public consensus on the pressing need for climate change legislation may present a way through (his impasse. The growing agreement among major American companies, civil society and most government leaders that climate change demands immediate action is resulting in the formation of many alliances and discussion groups across the traditional industry-civil social) divide and across political parties. This bodes well for collective discussion of the appropriate steps towards tackling climate change. Hopefully, it will be replicated at the international and individual levels.

Testing Climate Change Laws

The precepts are not static, unchanging words. They have to be brought to life through our actions and thoughts, but they also have to reflect changing circumstances and our own increased understanding of them. Therefore, a critical part of the practice is to revisit the precepts and ask oneself if the precepts need to be revised or one understands of them needs to be reconsidered. A practitioner may ask herself, "Have my actions reflected the wisdom contained in the precept? If not, why not? What obstacles kept me from practicing the precept? How could I improve? Docs the precept reflect my experience? Can I improve the expression of the precept, or my understanding of it?"

Climate change treaties, legislation, and principles have to reflect this same continuous feedback loop of reevaluation and readjusting. Particularly if we intend to set greenhouse gas emission goals for such distant timeframes as 2050, it will be critical to reevaluate whether progress is being made and whether new information suggests the goal and methods remain valid. It is also important to remind people who did not participate in the creation of the goal and legislation why the goal exists, as they may not have experienced the crisis that was the genesis of the goal.

Keeping Laws Fresh

From 1969 to 1980, the United States enacted dozens of federal statutes to address environmental concerns: air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land, species extinction, hazardous substances, and so on. It then crafted regulations to implement these laws, and then drafted policies to implement the regulations. As this system grew, lawsuits were filed as disputes erupted over interpretation of the laws, regulations, and policies. As a result, considerable environmental progress occurred, and a complex regulatory and legal system became entrenched. Congress rescinded a requirement that the President produce an annual report on environmental quality, perhaps evincing the attitude that environmental protection had largely been achieved.

But as climate change and the predictions of the IPCC demonstrate, Americans were so focused on implementing the laws; we forgot the central goal, which was to create a sustainable way of life that lifted people from poverty without damaging our ecosystem. We mistook complying with the laws and maintaining the legal system for actually practicing the central insight of seeking a sustainable economy. It is important to avoid this ossification of the principle into an arthritic system that fails to support the overall goal. Buddhist communities that rely on the practice without examining their methods and remembering the ultimate aim arc similarly at risk.

Looking Deeply: Climate Change is a Symptom, not the Disease

When we face our suffering, like the Earth's suffering from climate change, the Dharma encourages us to look deeply at the root cause. When we look at climate change, the root cause goes beyond greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming is only the most pressing and obvious example of the many dramatic impacts that humans have had on the planet as we outstrip the planet's ability to support life, both human and non-human. Even absent climate change, fresh water is rapidly becoming a limiting factor for some societies. Even absent climate change, our impacts on fisheries and on the ocean in general are increasingly passing the point of sustainability. The core challenge of climate change is that of sustainability: balancing economic sufficiency with ecological health.

It is not possible to solve global warming without eventually addressing the conundrum raised in my conversation with the civil society representative from China. The Western culture of consumption is not sustainable. If developing nations replicate it, we will cause unimaginable environmental destruction. We must, therefore, eventually embrace a sustainability ethic that recognizes unchecked economic growth as cancerous without simply leaving billions in poverty.

Fortunately, a sustainability ethic has already been framed in our international and many domestic laws. The Rio Declaration provides that "The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations."49 The United States" foundational environmental law states:

The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical imparlance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with Stale and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated lo foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.

Religious principles and ethical guidelines, from Buddhism to Aldo Leopold's land ethic, often stress the interdependence of humans and nature as well. The Buddha's core teaching on dependent co-arising is a beautiful expression of the interdependence, interbeing, and inseparability of humans and nature.'" The first, second, and fifth precepts can also give important teachings on not harming the planet, other species and future generations; not taking more than one needs; and not consuming things that cause harm. One could even decide to adopt a sixth precept to make more explicit what can be understood from the other precepts: avoid choices that would cause undue harm if all people made that choice. Many of the Buddha's other teachings, such as the Puttamansa sutta, offer insightful ways for Sangha to understand sustainability.''

The sustainability principle has been stated at all levels of society. But it has not been woven into precepts and reflected in our actions, words, and thoughts. Our practice of sustainability is weak, and the climate crisis should serve in part to wake us up to the imperative of revisiting our understanding of sustainability. Only when we are able to live our understanding of this core principle will our future and the futures of our children and the planet truly is possible.

Living Our Faith

Law is often seen as a monolithic and unchanging structure. It can become so, just as American environmental law became ossified. Our spiritual practices are susceptible to the same ills if we are not mindful. But by using the tools of Buddhist practice, we can craft our laws, regulations, and standards of individual conduct in such a way that they come alive through our actions in body, speech, and mind at the international, national and individual levels. Nourishing our understanding through mindfulness, compassionate dialogue and deep looking will result in effective steps towards addressing climate change.

The Buddha taught that we are on a path and that there is no destination oilier than the path. The same is true in our quest for a sustainable future. If we are mindful along the way, act compassionately towards one another, and give force to our understanding that we are one with all that is, including each other and the planet, then we may be freed from ecological sansara.