No Matter How Small
By John Taylor; 2008 Apr 22, 13 Jalal, 165 BE
Silvie dragged us twice to the cinema to see her latest obsession, the animated feature film, "Horton Hears a Who." Now she is pressuring me to drive her to mall after mall in quest of the missing link, her final addition to a line of "collectible" shampoo bottles featuring characters from the film. Dr. Seuss wrote this annoying story just after the Army-McCarthy Hearings; its mantra is, "A Person's a person, no matter how small." Needless to say, such was the spirit of the age that if Dr. Seuss had made his point less allegorically at the time, he would have been burned along with all the other victims of Senator McCarthy's witch burnings. An even more annoying group than the book itself, abortion rights lobbyists, later on tried to adopt this as their slogan, but reportedly Dr. Seuss threatened to sue them. The climax of the story comes when the smallest member of Whoville saves them all and a lesson is learned by all about who is really important in this world.
I have trouble waking up Silvie and Thomas in the morning, especially on school days, but this morning I figured out a way to lubricate the process. It occurred to me that maybe the original 1970 television special, a reading of the book by Dustin Hoffman, was available on YouTube. Sure enough, there it was -- which is why I am here writing this now instead of begging, cajoling, threatening and eventually dragging reluctant kids out of their bed. Thank you, YouTube.
Am I the only Baha'i interested in saving the environment? I did a lonely little Web search for other Baha'i environmentalists, and found on a blog called "Owen's Meanderings" an introductory article on rooftop lawns called "Green roofs for green homes." (http://owen59.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/green-roofs-for-green-homes/)
It is not a bad introductory article, though when I read about green roofs I cannot help but wish that we could take it a step further and have green rooftop gardens instead of just rooftop lawns. Grass is inedible by humans, and worse, a lawn is extremely thirsty and water is becoming a more precious resource every day. I just read the blog of Bill Nye (the science guy), and he supplements his diet quite nicely with the green veggies he grows in his backyard garden. That is the way to do it, grow the leafy part of your diet as close as you can to where you live. As Pollan points out in his Defense of Food, our factory diet restricts us to a legume and maize-based diet that is not natural to our bodies. Reading about the efforts of Nye, a member of the elite, to live more like the little guy, the one who is "a person no matter how small" seems ironic. Here we North Americans are pumping out our greenhouse gases to Africa, causing droughts far in excess of any aid we send there, and then we tsk tsk when, in direct reaction to the droughts we caused, there is war, genocide and, as we are told by news reports from Tanzania, in contrast to the metaphorical witch burnings of McCarthy they have real live witch burnings of old ladies singled out as scapegoats.
Yesterday's Holy Day I did not write anything, but the essay before that I wrote "The Poverty of Environmentalism." In it I observed that many are have misgivings about our survival chances; they are being called "new environmentalists." Current energy technology, scientists and new environmentalists alike are beginning to worry, is just not good enough. I had barely finished writing that when I came across a study in the influential publication Nature. It probably is the original inspiration of the popular articles that had inspired my "Poverty of Environmentalism."
The big question is: Will current technical means be enough to overthrow King Coal? Unlikely, says the Nature article, called "Dangerous Assumptions."
"How big is the energy challenge of climate change? The technological advances needed to stabilize carbon-dioxide emissions may be greater than we think, argue Roger Pielke Jr, Tom Wigley and Christopher Green," in Nature, April 3, 2008,
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/452531a.html>
These scientists argue, in effect, that we are rolling down a hill that is getting rapidly steeper.
"Because of these dramatic changes in the global economy it is likely that we have only just begun to experience the surge in global energy use associated with ongoing rapid development. Such trends are in stark contrast to the optimism of the near-future IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) projections and seem unlikely to alter course soon. The world is on a development and energy path that will bring with it a surge in carbon-dioxide emissions -- a surge that can only end with a transformation of global energy systems. We believe such technological transformation will take many decades to complete, even if we start taking far more aggressive action on energy technology innovation today."
These scientists appear to be gearing up the IPCC for a much more pessimistic report than the last, that famous report that moved environmentalism from the fringe to the mainstream, and relegated climate deniers from the mainstream into the ignominious company of holocaust deniers. Their next report will not be for a few years, but if the authors of this study are listened to, it will have a very different tone. In other words, the hill we are rolling down looks like it will turn into a cliff, a sheer drop from which there will be no question of slowing down by known means. Once we are airborne, we had better sprout wings fast or we will be out of luck. Here is the conclusion of the paper:
"Enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels. If ... most decarbonization does not occur automatically, then the challenge to stabilization could in fact be much larger than presented by the IPCC. ... climate policy would be better informed by having a clear view of the size of the technological challenge. The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur."
The clear and present danger of runaway climatic disaster galvanized scientists into forming this IPCC. Suddenly, it is the most influential international body in the world, even more, I would say, than the United Nations. They even shut up the ideologue in the White House. Now he is conceding their point, and trying to co-opt it as best he can. I am one of the smaller members of Whoville, and what I say matters less than a speck in the wind, but if there is a Horton waiting to advocate, here is what I would say:
What we need is a similar sense of urgency on the part of religious people. Scientists are not the only ones who can save us. The world's people of faith need to reconcile their differences and speak with a united voice on behalf of God's good earth. Only a united Parliament of Religions could hope for the moral authority that the IPCC has achieved in a brief time by diligent interdisciplinary study.
So, I would call out to the Universal House of Justice. They are the Horton, the big elephant, granted infallibility by Baha'u'llah, who can start this going. I would call and beg them to found a standing parliament of religions, the institution for reconciliation between creeds that Baha'u'llah called for. Let the Baha'is take the first step. If nobody else wants to join, just leave empty seats for them. But for God's sake, let us get an institution started, no matter what. Why not have its first session on the 100th anniversary of when Abdu'l-Baha suggested it, in 1912.
What should that standing parliament of faith do? How can a United Believers speed up the process of finding cheap, unlimited energy sources, doing what these scientists call "creating the conditions for such innovations to occur"? For one thing, even beyond what this body does on its own, it would be giving a terrific example to the world. Other groups would say, "Well, if the religions, who have been divided and sunk in hatred for one another since day one, if they can come together in saving us, maybe we can too."
And remember, Baha'u'llah called for a "universal gathering of man." That means that every trade and profession would gather as well, and learn to cooperate in this urgent task. For the challenge is not going to be solved by throwing money at it; research, behavior and expectations will have to be adjusted too.
I ask you, is now not the time for humanity's belief in God to bear fruit? God will help us, but we must pay attention to the means to the end, for results depend upon means. That is the teaching of Baha'u'llah, as well as of science. With the heating of the atmosphere, surely the fire mentioned in the following passage is taking on a far more literal meaning than anybody might have expected even a few years before.
"O MY SERVANTS! Ye are the trees of My garden; ye must give forth goodly and wondrous fruits, that ye yourselves and others may profit therefrom. Thus it is incumbent on every one to engage in crafts and professions, for therein lies the secret of wealth, O men of understanding! For results depend upon means, and the grace of God shall be all-sufficient unto you. Trees that yield no fruit have been and will ever be for the fire." (Baha'u'llah, Persian Hidden Words, #80)
No comments:
Post a Comment