The Washington Post just reported that representatives of Catholic Bishops “from around the globe” signed an appeal calling on next month’s UN climate conference in Paris to “approve a ‘transformative’ and legally binding agreement that set the global temperature limits.” This appeal reinforces the campaign of Pope Francis to protect “our common home.”
The Post also reported a study in the journal Nature Climate Change warning that five major Persian Gulf cities could become physically “uninhabitable” (due to heat) by the end of the century.
And the Boston Globe reported interesting data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In the 2005-2014 decade, the number of Bostonians commuting to work by bike tripled. Public transit commuting also increased, as did walking to work and working at home. The only decrease: people driving to work.
Reading that last report, I thought first of my own past. I bike-commuted to downtown Boston for 10 summers (except rainy days), 1978-1987. I had also commuted by bike across Boston’s north shore while in college for two summer jobs, and then biked to my senior year classes from off-campus. On one of those bikes I mounted a small green-and-white mini license plate that read “Non-Polluting Vehicle.”
Thinking back, it occurs to me that I was emulating two older role models. The first was John McGrath, a 60+ co-worker who rode his three-speed bike to General Electric’s West Lynn (Massachusetts) plant every day. The second was my own father, who rode his bike 6 miles to GE’s Everett (Massachusetts) point in his 40s and 50s.
These men were thinking “economizing” and “exercise,’ not “ecology”--but their example remains for me today. And my son Chris often gets to his La Jolla (California) job by bike--a 3rd generation “cyclo-commuter” !
What do all these things signal? Three things, I think: (1) The consensus on the man-made threat to our environment is now so strong that only people in denial can doubt it; (2) The Catholic Church is now throwing its weight squarely behind the push to reduce carbon emissions; (3) Pope Francis has made this push a moral imperative even for individuals and families. As Francis wrote in his encyclical “Laudato Si”:
A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements accomplish by boycotting certain products…This shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of consumers. “Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act.” Today, in a word, “the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle.”
For Catholics, this means reflecting on actions within our control. As Francis says:
We are always capable of going out of ourselves towards the other…Disinterested concern for others, and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption, are essential if we truly wish to care for our brothers and sisters and for the natural environment. These attitudes also attune us to the moral imperative of assessing the impact of our every action and personal decision on the world around us. If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society.
The point is not for all of us to take up cycling (my trip to my client on Martha’s Vineyard, for example, is 70+ miles overland, plus a 45-minute boat trip—too far to bike!). No, the point is to ask: “what is possible for me? How can I adjust my way of life to make it more sustainable, more eco-friendly? How can I take some stewardship for our common home?” In Francis’ words, it is about building new habits:
An awareness of the gravity of today’s cultural and ecological crisis must be translated into new habits. Many people know that our current progress and the mere amassing of things and pleasures are not enough to give meaning and joy to the human heart, yet they feel unable to give up what the market sets before them...A milieu of extreme consumerism and affluence which makes it difficult to develop other habits. We are faced with an educational challenge…Yet this education, aimed at creating an “ecological citizenship,” is at times limited to providing information, and fails to instill good habits... Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment.
It’s easy to misunderstand this challenge. When I told a recent group that Vatican City became the world’s first carbon neutral state by buying up a large forest, many investors were skeptical. “That doesn’t even reduce their energy use!” They said.
True enough--but no one can live modern life by reducing their carbon emissions to zero. Even all-electric cars mostly depend on power generated by burning fossil fuels, since hydro and wind-generated electricity (“clean electricity”) still supplies less than half our power. Nearly everything we buy, even food, has been produced, directly or indirectly, by burning carbon--and has burned more carbon while shipping to the store. Many homes would go dark and unheated and/or uncooled without carbon emissions, and without burning carbon all our batteries would fail to recharge.
No, the reduction of our carbon footprint is a more complex challenge. To become “carbon neutral” means balancing carbon emissions with carbon absorption. This requires both reducing carbon emissions and increasing offsetting measures. So the Vatican’s forest, for example, will absorb as much carbon (trees do it naturally, of course) as Vatican City emits. By buying the forest, those trees are preserved for that purpose.
For us, such balancing must be done on a case-by-case basis. There are many ways we can reduce emissions. We can convert our heating, cooling, and cars away from carbon-burning fuels. We can alter our thermostats: lower for heating, higher for cooling. We can drive less, we can use more public transportation, conserve the electricity used by our appliances, lights, and machinery. Some of us can convert to solar or wind power. We can shop locally more to reduce shipping emissions. Many online sites provide tips for planning ways to reduce our domestic carbon footprint.
But in addition to reducing emissions, we can also boost carbon absorption to offset our emissions and bring our carbon footprint closer to zero. One obvious way is to plant trees:
According to the Urban Forestry Network, a single young tree absorbs 13 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. That amount will climb up to 48 pounds annually as trees mature. Just one 10-year-old tree releases enough oxygen into the air to support two human beings.
In my case, for example, two young dogwood trees were planted on our property the year before we bought it. They joined another 7 trees on our plot. Without actually calculating the benefits, we know these trees offset some of our emissions.
It’s also possible to support offsets remotely, as Vatican City did:
This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. (from the website Mashable)
Most experts believe it’s impossible to offset all the planet’s current emissions. But one eco-conscious site, Brave New Climate, suggests our efforts can still serve a spiritual purpose:
Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO2 habit, offsets can help make a difference and allow you to pay a small penance.
PENANCE! Imagine using such an old Catholic term for our eco-efforts. But it makes perfect sense: our common home is struggling, not by accident, but because our way of life is exhausting its resources, and even depriving others of resources they need.
In short, our ecological crisis poses a moral imperative because it comes from a moral failure. As Pope Francis explains in his critical reading of Genesis:
We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations.
In other words, the failure to understand Genesis provided past excuses for mistreating the planet. This may not be our own moral failure, but the failure of past generations of whom we are heirs. In that sense, “going green” CAN be seen as a “small penance” for the sins of our ancestors—and a commitment to leave our childrens’s children’s children a “common home” that is more respectful of God’s great gifts.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015
