Environmentalism: Sackcloth and Ashes?

by David King, Member of the Management Committee, DEA

I was heartened to read the article on Eco Spirituality in the November 04 Australian Friend. It concluded with a challenge
“We have heard the call to put the health of the planet front-and-centre among Quaker concerns. Once again the Religious Society of Friends has the opportunity to play a leading role in one of the most crucial issues of our time.”
I sense that this process is still at a gestational stage in Australian Quakerism. How should we as a religious society engage with the issues of environmentalism, and give birth and nurture to this concern?

The first step may be to explore the implications of sustainable and environmentally responsible living, developing a better spiritual and scientific understanding of how it fits with Quaker thought and action. I suspect that many individuals are somewhat like our current Australian Prime Minister, finally accepting the scientific evidence of the human role in global warming, but changing the subject quickly to avoid the admission of guilt for current practice.

Environmentalism has been tainted with the image of tree hugging, wilderness protecting, anti-development activists. Yet even now groups such as farmers are at the forefront of efforts to conserve water and arable farming land. However, the small changes that many Australians are making may not be enough, as our current patterns of eating, shopping, housing and transport are part of the over-consumption of resources. It was estimated that in 1997 the total global consumption patterns exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. Various ‘global footprint calculators’, despite my best efforts at “green” living, predict that we would need more than one planet earth if all 6 billion of us lived like me. The implications of this in a finite world is that our consumption habits are contributing to others suffering from insufficient resources for healthy living. We are also living on credit, borrowing resources from future generations. Scientists have estimated we could see 1/3 of species lost, mostly due to habitat loss, in the next 50 years, while the number of livestock on Earth has quintupled since 1950. A recent Pentagon report has predicted that environmental degradation, including water and land shortages, will be the major driver of insecurity and conflict over the next 20 years.

A sense of urgency for our environment and fear for the future of civilized human society has increased over the last few years as I read commentators and scientific reports. Yet what can I do as an individual, when a major re-arrangement is paramount in global systems of governance, finance and trade. However, the driver for change in systems is either a critical mass of individuals calling for change, or a crisis that forces the system to respond. Many people believe that science will come up with solutions. Science is not value free, and a continuation to use science in ways that exploit a finite world and treat people as competitors and consumers is unlikely to bring the necessary salvation.

If you agree that global warming is occurring, that the human species is flourishing at the expense of the survival of other species; that many are starving because of the over-consumption of the developed world, what is your response? Surely such suffering, inequality and exploitation calls for a spiritually inspired investigation of how to make our actions more consistent with our beliefs in the sacredness of all life. Previous generations of Quakers risked life and freedom to live consistent with their beliefs. What are we doing today to stand up for environmentalism? How many Australian meeting houses have energy saving lights, water conservation systems, solar hot water systems, and have signed up with green energy systems, for a start.

Putting on sack-cloth and ashes was an Old Testament response to repentance and subsequent change. Yet ’sack cloth and ashes’ suggests discomfort, guilt and shame, and giving up all the ‘old’ ways. Does living responsibly and sustainably have to be like this? Is the perception that living sustainably is akin to suffering ’sack-cloth and ashes’ the barrier for Quakers (and many Australians) living more environmentally? Perhaps a more New Testament approach of seeing ‘simple living’ as synonymous with environmental sustainability, social equity and justice would be a more effective way to proceed. There can be a freedom and joy to simplifying our busy lives, and examining what our real rather than perceived needs are.

Reframing spiritual guidance to reduced consumption is not sufficient to provide a simple yes or no answer as to whether to purchase that air-conditioner or not. Complex issues are full of many shades of ‘grey’, and need to be seen in a wider context. Each person has to struggle with their own conscience and circumstances. An analogy is the young William Penn, as an officer with a sword as part of his uniform. This caused conflict with his Quaker belief in the Peace testimony, but was instructed by Friends to wear his sword until he felt fully convinced to lay it down.
I would welcome the support of my corporate religious group, which explicitly considered environmental concerns, to guide me in my daily lifestyle decisions.