sign in sign up
<<
Home , Earth Overshoot Day, Ecocide

Humanist Climate Action Humanist Climate Action launched in May and I was wondering if others shared my sense of disappointment: it wasn’t that humanism hardly got a look in, although that did feel strange, it was that the launch failed to make a clear and distinctive statement of what humanists could bring to ‘the table’ and where we might best concentrate our efforts. I was expecting more than a general discussion of the . 15 months ago I proposed to the HCA Steering Committee that we should consider a number of distinctive moral and ethical issues that I thought humanists were well-placed to champion.1 I argued then, and I’m arguing now, that we should give serious attention to building a strategy around promoting and doing everything we can to be ‘responsible ancestors’ for future generations. 1 Environmental Responsibilities & Ethical Concerns Over the years humanist organisations have made various pronouncements about the environment — I’ve highlighted the main ones in a fuller version of this paper. For me, the most recent, the Reykjavik Declaration, lacks substance. I find the American Humanist Association’s 2020 New Year Resolution rather more compelling: “Humanity is operating on an ecological imbalance that cannot be sustained. The science is clear, and each of us needs to recognize our personal and collective responsibility to protect this planet’s and cultivate healthy . In times when it seems that our leaders are unable to find a solution, humanists and all who are able must use their voices, votes, time, , resources, and participation to promote environmental justice and environmental for our shared planet.” I support HCA’s focus on encouraging humanists to “adopt greener lifestyles”, but I’d also like to see a host of moral issues considered, not least: • our personal responsibilities for emissions and our complicity in / ; • environmental justice, including the compassionate treatment of impacted communities in poor and vulnerable countries, and refugees displaced by ; • the conflict between and growth, and religious opposition to ; • the use of disinformation to manipulate public opinion on global warming/climate change; and • intergenerational justice. I recognise that a number of these issues are highly contentious, but isn’t it our moral responsibility to debate them? And wouldn’t this help sharpen our understanding and strengthen our collective resolve?2 I don’t personally think it wise for humanist organisations to get involved in promoting or endorsing specific unless there is the necessary inhouse expertise: environmental policy is complicated and there are countless contentious issues to stumble over / divert attention — , incineration, rewilding, veganism — not to mention Extinction Rebellion’s absolutist demands... It may turn out to be too late to prevent (even worse) catastrophic consequences for our planet than we’ve seen in recent years. When asked about this, David Attenborough is reported to have commented that we can only slow down the rate at which things get worse. If Sir David is correct, it not only raises profound ethical questions about how humankind might cope with its collective guilt at getting us into this mess, but also how we need to frame a campaign if people are to respond constructively to the challenge and not retreat into reality apathy. 2 Making it Happen I’ve listed below some specific actions that I’d like to see humanists talking about/acting on. But let me begin with a comment and some practical suggestions concerning the adoption of greener lifestyles/environmental stewardship. For me, too many activists are quick to pass blame for their contribution to emissions onto the companies that produce or provide the goods and services that they consume, and the government, which sets the legal and fiscal framework in which they/we operate. But the bulk of household emissions originate from heating, transport and , and these are things that we all have considerable personal control over (see below). One way for local groups to encourage members to accept some degree of personal social responsibility for what’s happening is to encourage them to calculate their and understand why different calculators3 often generate different results; another, is to support Day (22 April) and ‘Earth Day’ (the day that marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate). This year EOD is July 29th — three weeks earlier than last year; and the UK’s EOD falls earlier still... Groups might also look into establishing bilateral link ups with local and national environment/development NGOs — over 70 are listed as signatories to the Climate Change Coalition’s ‘Green & Fair 10 Point Plan’ (which Humanists UK has signed up to). It is not going to be easy to persuade people to forego popular high impact activities that they/we take for granted, like owning a car, flying for non-essential purposes, eating meat, and even keeping pets — the size of the challenge we face is implicit in the graph.4 And nudging is likely to be a more effective strategy than nagging, nannying or virtue signalling — which is another reason for humanists having a clear, positive message to help guide the conversation. Basically, we need to change our view of what is ‘normal’ / acceptable, and this will require a sustained campaign on a par with anti-smoking, drink driving and wearing seat belts combined. Slogan anyone? And how about keeping a database of what Humanists UK’s members/local groups achieve through their efforts? Actions speak louder than words. But if we’ve serious, surely this is just the start: shouldn’t we / humanist organisations be: a) adopting environmental justice as an overarching theme and working closely with others to deliver it ‘Environmental justice’ requires “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, colour, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." So it is a very broad term, but no more so than “having a duty of care to all humanity including future generations” (Amsterdam Declaration). In the UK it could include ‘fuel poverty’ and ‘the right to clean air’; and globally, ‘communities impacted by climate change’ and ‘people affected by , crop failure or ’. I would like to see humanist organisation ‘tweak’ their Objects accordingly, and work with local groups and partners to develop an appropriate set of policies. For example, the introduction to Humanists UK Objects might say that the charity “promotes humanism and environmental justice and supports and represents people who seek to live good without religious or superstitious beliefs.” The fact that people can’t ‘live good lives’ if they are denied a healthy environment should be justification enough... It is perhaps also worth mentioning here the issue of religious opposition to birth control, which may well come to be seen as a legitimate ‘emerging contemporary issue’ for Humanists UK to pursue in the context of depletion and the growing impact of people on the climate crisis. That said, humanists do need to be aware that facts, reason and logic don’t wash when it comes to tackling issues like birth control (and climate denial) and that stories and legislation are likely to be more effective. To challenge the rhetoric, one needs to understand the psychology. b) Supporting efforts to have recognised as a by the International Criminal Court Ecocide is mass damage and destruction of ecosystems, harm to nature which is widespread, severe or systematic. It has created the current climate and ecological emergency. I’d like to propose that Humanists UK and Humanists International explore joining/endorsing what has become a growing international campaign. The ICC Statute currently lists four : Genocide; Crimes Against Humanity; War Crimes; and (most recently) Crimes of Aggression. As the organisers of the campaign argue: “Unlike suing and fining corporations (who simply budget for this possibility), making ecocide a crime creates an arrestable offence. It makes those individuals who are responsible for funding, permitting or causing severe environmental harm liable to criminal prosecution.” c) Actively lobbying for legislation on inter-generational equity Young people are angry, and they have every right to be. Indeed, my post-war baby-boom generation bears much of the responsibility for unwittingly stealing their future and compromising their and future generations’ ability to meet their legitimate environmental, social and economic needs. There have been too many promises by politicians and too little action. There are two important bills going through Parliament right now that relate to intergenerational equity.5 What is needed, if this legislation is to be passed into law, is the support of a majority of MPs, and this will require massive public support/pressure. And if the Bills are voted out, as seems likely, humanists could proactively support efforts to table replacements — and raise merry hell about why this is important. d) Embracing humanistic economics I think humanists should also be proactive in promoting humanistic economics — a system based on what we value that puts people and human well-being before financial gain. In April 2020, 170 scholars in the Netherlands signed a manifesto which summarized what they considered needed to be done during and after the Covid-19 and they put forward five distinct proposals (take a look). The signatories argue that their approach should lead to “more sustainable, equal and diverse societies better able to prevent and deal with shocks and to come, including responding to climate change.” Change is possible, as Mark Lynus pointed out at the launch — we’ve seeing climate sceptics in retreat, a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, and changes in Western diet... For me it is regrettable that very few of the above issues were explored at the Humanist Climate Action launch: would anyone else like to see them on the agenda? Mike [17 Jun 2021] PS: If it needs an Environmental Justice Campaigner at Humanists UK to implement such a programme — and a campaign to raise money for this — then that is something I would support, provided the appointee has good environmental credentials and the authority to make things happen. I think such a move would be seen as a serious declaration of intent on the part of the humanist community.

Notes

1 I chair Milton Keynes Humanists, but I’ve written this paper in a purely personal capacity. I was a member of the HCA Steering Committee up until March 2020 when I resigned because of concern about the focus and direction of travel. 2 What is not contentious is who is primarily responsible (directly & indirectly) for man-made global warming (the Rich North), and who are likely to be most affected by climate change/sea level rise (those living in the Global South). As of today, the UK’s cumulative emissions of CO2 are significantly greater than ’s... 3 Here are five [free] carbon calculators to explore: WWF, carbon footprint, Carbon Neutral, Giki zero and National Energy Foundation. 4 I appreciate that some options are difficult/require changes in infrastructure, but we can limit the number of rooms we heat in our homes; we can moderate our travel demands (use public transport, car share, staycation, etc.); change our diet, turn off lights — not least outside vanity lights; moderate our binge-watching and reduce the number/size of our pets! 5 The first of the two bills, the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill, requires the Government to work to give current and future generations a voice in decision-making, protect them from global threats, and deliver a new, sustainable vision for the nation that prioritises our environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing. (The Bill is backed by Today For Tomorrow, a cross-party campaign.) The second, the Climate & Ecological Emergency Bill, “assigns new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.” (It was drafted by the CEE Bill Alliance to update the Climate Change Act 2008.)