Hearing my song

As the attention of the world is focussed on Ukraine, I expected to be writing about autocracy, war crimes and the humanitarian crisis but my eye was caught by an article about the climate emergency. Clearly this is still with us – and the conflict is almost certainly worsening things. We can hope for an acceleration of the move away from fossil fuels as Europe turns its collective back on Russian oil and gas but, in the short term, it will hurt.

The article I was reading wasn’t about this but rather about six actions we are challenged to take as individuals to tackle the crisis. These range from minimising the meat in our diet to buying only three new items of clothing a year, include keeping electronic equipment and cars longer, and flying only every few years. This is clearly intended to be challenging but based on an analysis of actions which might make a difference. To me it also feels a little simplistic. Consider the impact of restricting clothes buying in this way. There are over 30,000 business in fashion and textiles in the UK alone, and more than half a million people but this is a global issue and there are over 23 million people in the sector worldwide. Let’s say this initiative halves the business, that’s 12m people out of work and unable to feed their families, with all the knock on effects on the businesses supplying the sector, on the people who rely on those now out of work for custom. Similar arguments apply with the other proposals.

This does not mean that I disagree with the thrust of the proposal. In principle I think buying less, flying less etc are good ideas but I think a blanket approach to the issue requires systemic change and other means of supporting people in order to avoid creating a new humanitarian disaster. Maybe a universal basic income, a planned transition to more climate friendly activity, training for skills transfers. I realise this implies governmental action and government track records on this are poor. I also realise that our government in the UK is particularly inept and unlikely to step up, still subsidising fossil fuels, supporting new mines and the rest of it. So, what’s the answer?

It seems to me that we need a mix of answers. Yes, we need individual answers because waiting for government means it will never happen, but we also need to lobby the politicians, campaign, and vote for survival. We can put pressure on business to behave in a planet friendly way. Many are moving in that direction. Those who manage pension fund money and savings are increasingly supporting those moves, demanding them in some cases. If we have savings, pensions or whatever, we can encourage that pressure. If we lead the way and also apply pressure we can make a difference. So the challenge is a good one, in the drive to think and act more than in the specific proposals. It’s also timely in reminding us that even when there is an immediate threat and fear of war, we still need to think about this underlying threat which is not going away.

So what should our individual responses be? I think we need to work them out for ourselves. Reduced consumption and better buying choices might form part of it, but also switching fuel types and usage, planting trees, helping to conserve natural areas and other changes as well as encouraging each other. Complexity should not lead to paralysis.

I was thinking of all this as I read I go among the trees and sit still, a poem by Wendell Berry. I read it as a challenge to take time to sit and find my role, face my fears but also a message of hope, much needed at the moment. It ends with these words

After days of labor, mute in my consternation
I hear my song at last and I sing it
as we sing, the day returns, the trees move.