Dr. Budi Widianarko, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Indonesia
Introduction
For decades, various man-made environmental problems have been threatening the sustainability of our planet. Among these environmental problems, climate change has been at the center stage of global attention. One probable explanation is that climate change is a multi-dimensional environmental problem with manifold impacts.
Many parts of
Both at the global and local levels, however, climate change is not a uniform process, especially in terms of causes and impacts. The contribution of green house gases (GHGs) emission by countries, sectors, or individuals varies. Likewise, different countries or segments of the population in one country face different impacts, depending on their geographical position and particular features.
Despite these great variations, we may notice that never in history have countries from all over the world - large and small, developed and less developed - been so unified in recognizing the threat posed by climate change as a common challenge. Climate change has become a buzzword used in various conversation settings, from elementary school classrooms to world leaders conferences.
Countries have also been aware of the need for a concerted action to deal with the challenges of climate change. However, the agreement on problem recognition does not necessarily lead to a consensus on how to deal with the problem. The slow progress of concerted action to deal with climate change clearly shows how socio-economic and political barriers work perfectly in hampering problem resolution. As described in the A-K-T-E-S-P scheme for a better environment by Trudgill (1990), economic (E), social (S) and political (P) barriers cannot be left out, although three other barriers, i.e. agreement (A), knowledge (K) and technology (T) have unraveled.
Actions required to tackle climate change (climate action) is a hard challenge to sustainability because it is complex and still evolving. The current approach to climate action is still, to some extent, trapped into a “reductionism”, i.e. regarding the earth’s carbon-cycling capacity as a tradable commodity on the global market (Moosa, 2008). Along this line, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the
To deal with climate challenge, the world needs a new kind of leadership, one which is capable of eliminating a wide array of frictions, e.g. between rich, emerging, and poor nations which have different carbon agendas; between national growth aspiration and individual rights; between individuals with hedonistic and those with modest lifestyles. This new kind of leadership requires a specific character. Since climate change is one of the most significant faults produced by human civilization, a concerted action by nations and communities is needed to deal with it. However, the existing climate related initiatives at the global level still seem far from perfect. One character which has a potential to transform the current leadership into a new leadership - capable of creating a concerted action against climate change - is solidarity. This paper attempts to describe why solidarity is a core value of the new leadership which is expected to escape from the trap of climate change deadlock, and to explore the possible role of Christian universities in cultivating solidarity.
Carbon Footprint: A Sustainability Challenge
Anthropogenic or manmade climate change, or simply known as climate change has become a catchword, not only among scientists, but also in the conversation of lay persons across communities and nations. In his popular book, “Collapse How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive” Diamond (2006) affirmed climate change as one of 12 processes of ecological suicide which might bring the world into collapse. Out of these 12 processes, there are 8 which have been attributed to the collapse of past societies. These processes include deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses), water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and the increased per capita impact of people. Ironically, humans do not seem to have learnt from the past. Furthermore, Diamond (2006) asserted that instead of reducing the number of these suicidal processes, modern civilization yields four additional processes, i.e. the buildup of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, full human utilization of the earth’s photosynthetic capacity, and human-related climate change.
It has become common knowledge that the uncontrollable emission of green house gases (GHGs), i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) by various human activities are the culprits of climate change. Over the last 250 years, human activities such as deforestation, burning of fossil fuels and intensive agriculture have significantly elevated concentrations of GHGs. In 2005, concentrations of CO2 (379 parts per million, ppm) and CH4 (1774 parts per billion, ppb) in the atmosphere have exceeded the natural range of the last 6500 years (IPCC, 2007). In its fourth evaluation report (2007), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that temperature rise since the mid of twentieth century is very likely due to the elevated level of GHGs concentrations. In the same report, the IPCC also showed that the increased emission of GHGs have been associated with an average global temperature rise of 0.3°C-0.6°C since the end of the nineteenth century; at the end of twenty first century the emission of GHGs will further induce global average temperature rises of 1.4°C-5.8°C.
The rise in average global temperature has been projected to induce a range of environmental and health impacts, such as water scarcity as well as water destructive redundancy (e.g. flood), ecosystems destruction, degradation of coastal areas, health problems and food shortages. Food production will be impacted particularly by the shift in the planting season. Sea water rise will threaten human settlements and agricultural activities along coastal areas, leading to numerous economic and health problems. Increased frequency of extreme weather events will also threaten agriculture and food production, as well as human health. Actually, the impact of temperature rise has already taken place. According to a recent report by Oxfam International (Schuemer-Cross & Taylor, 2009), between 1998 and 2007 on average 250 million people were affected by “natural” disasters each year, and 98 % of them were victims of climate-related disasters, such as droughts and floods. The same report also projected that by 2015 the average number of victims will reach an annual rate of 375 million.
One way to measure an individual, organization or nation’s contribution to climate change is by calculating its “carbon footprint”. It has become a widely used term and concept in the discourse on global climate change. The term carbon footprint is rooted in the concept of an ecological footprint. The Ecological Footprint concept was established by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees at the
As the commonly accepted basic definition, the carbon footprint stands for a certain amount of gaseous emissions that are relevant to climate change and associated with human production or consumption activities (Wiedmann & Minx, 2008). While its baseline definition is widely accepted, so far there is no consensus on how to quantify a carbon footprint - ranging from direct CO2 emissions to full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions - and no standard unit of measurement agreed upon. Without undervaluing its limitation, however, the carbon footprint accounting can now serve as a tool for identification and comparison of carbon contribution by individuals, organizations or nations (see e.g. Table 1). Recently, Hertwich & Peters (2009) invented a new calculation method which is based on a single, trade-linked model of the global economy. The model is claimed to offer the most consistent global comparison across countries currently available.
Table 1. Per Capita GHG Footprint of a Selection of Asian Countries in 2001
(From Hertwich & Peters, 2009)
| | | | | | | | |
| Footprint [tCO2e/p]* | 29.0 | 13.8 | 11,3 | 9.2 | 3,2 | 1.9 | 1,9 |
| Domestic Share | 17% | 68% | 68% | 75% | 78% | 89% | 76% |
| Population(million) | 7.2 | 126.8 | 22.3 | 47.6 | 62.8 | 213.3 | 79.9 |
| Construction | 13% | 14% | 10% | 11% | 11% | 8% | 8% |
| Shelter | 8% | 12% | 17% | 15% | 12% | 20% | 13% |
| Food | 7% | 11% | 14% | 12% | 21% | 28% | 36% |
| Clothing | 28% | 4% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 1% | 1% |
| Manufactured products | 20% | 15% | 16% | 12% | 8% | 4% | 5% |
| Mobility | 11% | 22% | 21% | 32% | 25% | 22% | 17% |
| Service | 9% | 18% | 15% | 19% | 17% | 16% | 17% |
| Trade | 7% | 8% | 7% | 7% | 2% | 1% | 4% |
*) tCO2e/p = tons of CO2 equivalent per capita
Based on Hertwich & Peters (2009) calculation, we can see that there is a great variation of per capita GHGs footprint between countries in
Solidarity and Leadership
Since climate change is one of the most significant faults produced by human civilization, it is natural that humans have to mitigate its effects. A concerted action by nations and communities is therefore needed to deal with it. However, the existing climate related initiatives at the global level still seem far from perfect. Countries still fail to bring the notion of solidarity into the meeting room. The deficiency of the Copenhagen Accord, the latest global summit on climate change, has clearly demonstrated how countries are still imprisoned by their own interests, rather than seeking for a mutual win-win solution.
While the discourse on climate change has occupied so much space in both the local and global arena, there is one dimension, however, which has been left behind. The solidarity dimension is somewhat neglected in the discourse. At the global level, climate change is not a uniform process, especially in terms of causes and impacts. The contribution to the carbon footprint by countries varies. Likewise, different countries will face different impacts, depending on their geographical position and features. Ironically, countries with larger carbon footprints do not necessarily face a higher impact.
As pointed out by Sweeney (2008) humans must bear the consequences of growing pressures on our natural resource base. Income per capita is growing sharply in the most densely populated countries, particularly
None of the tools and approaches suggested by Sweeney (2008) is novel or new. What would be new is a public stance by leaders of nations and programs to consummate the goal of making new nations which are not dependent on fossil fuels and the political entanglements that seem to surrounds the world ‘s fossil fuels based economy (see e.g. Johnson, 2005). There are, of course, enormous political constraints, both at national and global levels to avoid doing the best for the planet and our legacy to the next generation. Johnson (2005) suggested that instead of overcoming these barriers through political muscle, there is a need for visionary leadership that can care enough about the welfare of future generations (Johnson, 2005).
This global sustainability challenge requires a collaborative, global response. Leadership and acceptance of differentiated responsibilities must be at the heart of any future global agreement to reduce the carbon footprint. According to Stern & Noble (2008) developed countries must lead the way in taking action: by the adoption of ambitious targets for the reduction of their GHGs emissions; promoting technological innovation to mitigate the effects of climate change; supporting programs to stop deforestation; encouraging effective market mechanisms, and honoring their aid commitments to the developing countries.
Stern & Noble (2008) endorsed three basic criteria of global action to combat climate change, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. In this case, equity has to become the heart of all decision making, as the starting point for taking action it is already inequitable. Wealthy countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions. The same holds true for wealthy families or individuals in a country. They tend to release more GHGs than those of lower economic status. The deficiency of the Copenhagen Accord, the latest global summit on climate change, has clearly demonstrated how countries are still imprisoned by their own interests, rather than seeking for a mutual win-win solution. The fight against climate change is more a problem of ethics rather than merely a technical obstacle.
Rigoberta Menchu, a Nobel Peace Laureate from
Roles of Christian Higher Education
The challenges posed by climate change are significant and demand strong commitment and leadership at all levels of government and society. In addition to that, since the interconnectedness of the environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges is becoming increasingly obvious, Flemming (2009) stresses the importance of the so called, “shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community”. Flemming (2009) further asserted that such a vision can be found in the Earth Charter which provides sixteen “interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and trans-national institutions is to be guided and assessed”.
Principle 14 of the Earth Charter emphasizes the need to “integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life” (Hessel, 2002. According to Flemming (2009) education is critical in the promotion of sustainable development and improving the capacity of people to address environmental and developmental issues. Education is also critical in achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behavior coherent with sustainable development, and for effective public participation in decision-making. As a special case, universities are “an integral part of the global economy, and since they prepare most of the professionals who develop, manage and teach in society’s public, private and non-government institutions, they are uniquely positioned to influence the direction we choose to take as a society” (The Talloires Declaration 1990 - Association of University Leaders for A Sustainable Future quoted in Flemming, 2009). The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future also stated that a bold agenda to make sustainability and the environment a cornerstone of academic practice is required for higher education institutions to succeed in the twenty first century. Further, Flemming (2009) stated that for universities and colleges to achieve their significant role for sustainability they can focus on four interconnected elements, i.e. institutional policy and commitment, operational activities, teaching and research, and professional development/ extension activities.
If peaceful and equitable life coexistence is the ultimate vision of the global community, education, Christian Higher Education, in particular, has a deep moral obligation to promote the value of solidarity throughout its agenda. Solidarity is certainly not a new concept in Christian teaching. Pope John Paul II in his address, “From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All” for the celebration of World Day of Peace, 1 January 1998 wrote
“...........We are on the threshold of a new era which is the bearer of great hopes and disturbing questions. What will be the effect of the changes taking place? Will everyone be able to take advantage of a global market? Will everyone at last have a chance to enjoy peace? Will relations between States become more equitable, or will economic competition and rivalries between peoples and nations lead humanity towards a situation of even greater instability?
For a more equitable society and a more stable peace in a world on the way to globalization, it is an urgent task of the International Organizations to help promote a sense of responsibility for the common good. But to achieve this we must never lose sight of the human person, who must be at the centre of every social project. Only thus will the United Nations become a "family of nations", in accordance with its original mandate of "promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom". This is the path for building a world community based on "mutual trust, mutual support and sincere respect". The challenge, in short, is to ensure a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization. This is a clear duty in justice, with serious moral implications in the organization of the economic, social, cultural and political life of nations.”
Climate change has confronted the global community with the challenge of building an equitable society. To achieve an equitable society we cannot rely only on international organizations, although they have managed to promote a sense of responsibility for the common good among nations. The global community has a duty to ensure “a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization”.
More recently, Pope Benedict XVI in his address, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation” for the celebration of World Day of Peace, 1 January 2010 wrote
“..A greater sense of intergenerational solidarity is urgently needed. Future generations cannot be saddled with the cost of our use of common environmental resources. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries; for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family. Universal solidarity represents a benefit as well as a duty. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community”. Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future. In addition to a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity there is also an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and highly industrialized countries: “the international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future”. The ecological crisis shows the urgency of a solidarity which embraces time and space. It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries. Yet the less developed countries, and emerging countries in particular, are not exempt from their own responsibilities with regard to creation, for the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies is incumbent upon all. This would be accomplished more easily if self-interest played a lesser role in the granting of aid and the sharing of knowledge and cleaner technologies."
In the above address Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the wide spectrum nature of solidarity. Ecological crisis in our time has called for, “a solidarity which embraces time and space”. To achieve earth sustainability, a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity has to be supplemented with a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and highly industrialized countries, or between high and low carbon consuming individuals or countries. Pope Benedict XVI also stated that the less developed and emerging countries are not exempt from their own responsibilities, i.e. the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies.
Since solidarity is one of the core values of Christianity, Christian universities and colleges have, naturally, a pivotal role in breaking up the climate change deadlock. Christian higher learning institutions have to become the promoters of Christian-Eco-Solidarity values. In the context of ACUCA, the promotion of Christian-Eco-Solidarity values can be genuinely reinforced through concerted actions involving member universities representing countries with different carbon footprints. ACUCA’s collective initiatives - such as joint research, joint curriculum development, student camps, service learning, as well as student and faculty exchanges - are potential vehicles to disseminate and cultivate Christian-Eco-Solidarity values in member institutions.
References
Benedict XVI (2010). If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation. Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for The Celebration of The World Day of Peace, 1 January 2010.
Diamond, J. (2006). Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Pengin Books.
Fleming, M.L. (2009). Ecological sustainability: What role for public health education? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6: 2028-2040.
Hertwich, E.G. & G.P. Peters (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 6414-6420.
Hessel, D.T. (2002). The Earth Charter: Guide to a sustainable way of life. In Biodiversity Project: Ethics for A Small Planet. Biodiversity Project.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
John Paul II (1998). From the justice of each comes peace for all. Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for The Celebration of The World Day of Peace, 1 January 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment