The Nature of Hope
Philip M. Cook
Peace UCC, Duluth, MN
April 18, 2010
In four days people around the world will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. On the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, an estimated 20 million Americans gathered in cities and towns across the country. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin had worked during the 1960s to bring the growing grassroots environmental activism in the country to the attention of Congress and the federal government. Persistent hope motivated Senator Nelson to lay the groundwork for a series of teach-ins on the environment in 1970 which, within a miniscule budget but much youthful enthusiasm from volunteers, became the first earth day. Interest in environmental issues has been growing ever since. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was founded in December 1970 and just sixteen months later, I miraculously found my life's purpose at the new EPA National Water Quality Laboratory here in Duluth. In so doing our family put aside our desire to return to life in the Rocky Mountains or New England's Appalachian Mountain region.
In early June 1972, while I worked in Madison to complete my PhD thesis, my wife, Elsie, drove to Duluth in search of a new home for our family. She called to report that, amazingly, she saw ice packed into the western end of Lake Superior as she descended into this grand lake basin from the Wisconsin side. How unreal that vision seems today. Yet a majority of Americans believe that human activity is not contributing to global climate change. And climate scientists are increasingly accused of bias and worse despite evidence that climate changes in vulnerable regions such as northern Minnesota are exceeding predictions.
Scientists are as diversely human as others, but by profession, strongly committed to finding truths within a range of certainty that can be difficult to measure. For that reason alone, future climate predictions are typically reported conservatively. The thermodynamic basis for the greenhouse effect on climate is sound, although underappreciated by many. We should expect environmental changes as a consequence of the historic exponential growth in human activity around the globe. Scientist's recognition of some uncertainty does not support an attitude that we, the people, must wait to act until we are absolutely sure about every detail of an environmental effect prediction - whether it be for climate change, chemical toxicity, loss of habitat and species diversity, limited food and water supplies, or spread of diseases and invasive species.
Paradoxically, each spring here in northeastern Minnesota seems to bring out public and media hopes for warm, dry weather well in advance of normal climate behavior. And the more we get – as with this year - the more people seem to hope for. Since last September the departures from expected mean temperatures have averaged more than five degrees Fahrenheit per day. That's for every day since last September with late winter, early spring departures significantly greater. Our desire to jump to warm, sunny weather in March and April is not surprising but, there are consequences, both ecological and socioeconomic. The weather we wish for is out of synch with nature at this latitude. Migrating or hibernating species may arrive too early or too late for essential foods or weather conditions critical to their survival or reproduction. Even maple sap flow, which few people see but more enjoy eventually as syrup, may be greatly limited by rapid spring warm up. Forest health may be affected and fires more prevalent. Well within the time for seven human generations, this area may become largely prairie, rather than forest. Our lake and stream ecosystem functions and the services they provide can be damaged. Even this area's shipping connection to the world may be threatened if Lake Superior water levels drop too far.
The history of creation involves a long evolution of order and biological diversity broken a few times by cataclysmic geologic or celestial events that resulted in great extinctions, whereupon the process resumed with new forms of life arising. Humans have but just arrived on earth but have had such a strong impact on creation, particularly in the last 200 years, that a new geological period has been declared. The new epoch is named "the Anthropocene" because humans are radically transforming the surface of the earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere, thus increasing disorder, rather than order, and causing many species extinctions. Our species, homo sapiens, is very adaptable and perhaps we could regard this as an asset, but more likely as time passes, our adaptability could lead to our own demise. Why are we not yet better using our intelligence, knowledge, and faith to sustain and care for the creation? Is it that we have evolved so fast and recently that we by nature are still focusing on and reacting to the present and have yet to find the need to focus on where we are going?
Since we have conflicting hopes that confuse and complicate our ability to share a vision for the future, we should ask how can such hopes be revised, combined and shared. In observing Earth Day, let's put aside selfish, impulsive, narrow, impossible, superficial, and conflicting hopes. Instead let's talk about the fundamental hopes that we really need and God expects us to faithfully make authentic for sustaining the biosphere through our actions and support. This isn't "Make a Wish Day" – it's a day for asking "what can I, my family, my friends, my Church, my business do to make things better before the next Earth Day. And, do I dare and care to ask myself this question every day? Why not make every day an Earth Day from now on? If not now, when will we start to do so?
How can we measure progress? It's not easy – we must separate hope from hype and be careful not to fall into well intentioned, but false assumptions of "greenness". The National Council of Churches, in discussing celebrating and caring for creation, describes an ecological (or environmental) footprint simply as "a measure of a person's consumption on the earth". The footprint relates consumption of resources to productive land space required to provide the resources. In that manner we find that the ecological footprint for the United States is at least ten times that which is deemed sustainable. You probably have also heard of the carbon footprint with regard to global climate change problems. It is typically defined as "the total amount of greenhouse gases, in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide, produced to directly and indirectly support human activities". The carbon footprint is more specifically related to a person's direct consumption of carbon based fuels and consumption of materials, including food and water, that require energy from carbon based fuels for production, processing, packaging, transport, or waste disposal. We should also include our personal share of all the greenhouse gas emissions associated with our use of public and private facilities, transportation, entertainment, health care, church, business, etc.
These footprint indicators of resource consumption are useful but insufficient in that they do not explicitly account for the loss of ecosystem space from direct or indirect environmental effects from pollution associated with our consumption of natural, geological, and agricultural resources; water diversions; forest clearing; urban and suburban sprawl; transportation infrastructures, etc. They also don't evaluate the future impacts of the on-going depletion of nonrenewable resources like fossil fuels. All ecosystems possess capacities to assimilate waste and repair damage but it should be evident that we have and are exceeding these assimilative capacities in many ways and places.
Thus it seems that we need to recognize a second footprint for the ecosystem damage related consequences of our ecological or carbon footprints. What does this mean? Basically, when you consume resources you take a step with a foot with a size that defines how big your resource demands are on the landscapes and waterscapes. But then you have incurred an involuntary second step with a footprint with a size that defines the size of your environmental damage contribution – this footprint is still difficult for us to measure. You can't live without taking these two steps – that's a reality. The important thing is that it is very possible for all of us to equitably minimize the size of our personal footprints. Perhaps in so doing, we can shake our society's insistence that our highest function is to consume - which seems so totally contrary to the Bible's fundamental message of giving more than taking.
Here at Peace Church we have in recent years taken significant steps toward reducing our environmental footprints. One step was a challenge to switch to compact fluorescent lighting in our homes and the church building. This led a few to question whether this was a good thing because CFLs contain a small amount of potentially toxic mercury that could be released if a CFL is broken. Could we be reducing our electricity use while increasing our environmental damage footprint? Good questions can lead to good answers. First, we can be assured that the amount of mercury in a CFL is much less than that emitted into the atmosphere in association with the electricity used with the old incandescent light bulbs. Secondly, if a CFL is broken, the pieces should be swept up and put in a sealed container which can be brought to a local hazardous waste collection center.
Thirdly, we found that we could bring spent or failed CFLs from our homes to church and, periodically, a Peace Church volunteer can take them to a recycling center. Where there is a will, there is a way… and both of our environmental footprints have gotten a little smaller.
Aldo Leopold, the highly revered early conservationist and founder of the "conservation ethic", was a government scientist, naturalist, farmer and hunter throughout his life. He mastered the art of respectfully taking no more than nature could comfortably provide. And each time I read the following passage in his Sand County Almanac on an encounter with wolves as he was beginning his career with the U.S. Forest Service, in Arizona around 1910, I am deeply moved. These are his words:
"What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock. In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy. When our rifles were empty the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassible slide-rocks. We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunter's paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither wolf not the mountain agreed with such a view." Aldo went on to describe the environmental consequences of the subsequent eradication of wolves in the western U.S.
Many may think that the Aldo Leopold quote on wolves and their place in nature seems focused on a controversial species and thus is a distraction from more important human survival and justice issues. But, one can see connections across all forms of injustice that link to fundamental problems of human behavior. In January 1998 the state of Minnesota held a series of meetings for gathering public input on developing a state management plan for wolves in anticipation of their removal from the federal endangered species protection list. I attended a meeting held in Duluth. Strong feelings were expressed and some disinformation dispensed by people on both sides of the wolf population issue. A few women spoke in favor of wolf protection and received their share of "wolf – lover" putdowns from wolf haters in the audience. But then three Native Americans spoke as individuals late in the meeting. Each spoke of their ancestral, personal and tribal spiritual reverence for the wolf. They explained that many tribes have ancient connections to wolves as "brothers" and often identify as wolf clans. They simply asked for consideration of their devout spiritual affiliation with wolves.
The reaction of many men in the audience was shocking. Some even rose with shaking fists threatening the Native American speakers. The level of hateful and offensive language spewing from some in the audience was elevated to racial epithets and shouting for some time before the moderator asked for decorum. I am ashamed to this day for not rising and appealing for decency. Not one person in the audience did so – this is another example of the "bystander effect" which we must overcome. And it surely is a component of our collective limitations for confronting and solving the big environmental problems we face today. It's always somebody else's problem or responsibility. But once people dare act, others follow when they see the path. Unfortunately, these social behavior barriers and the potential for human conflict seem greater in proportion to the biosphere space or wildlife and human populations being impacted.
When building a foundation for hope, let us consider the following Native American wisdom:
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people
He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather:
"Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed"
Let us pray that we may find more ways each year to feed the good wolves in us.
Albert Einstein once said "Look into nature and then you will understand everything better." In other words, when you observe the intricacy and interdependence of life forms from microorganisms to the largest mammals in their natural habitats, you will begin to comprehend the complexity and beauty of life and creation on earth.
A butterfly is a little creature that illustrates Einstein's proposition about understanding nature as a means to acknowledge the delicacy of life. Such beautiful, but small and fragile, insects are powerless in comparison to the world they inhabit. Their lives can be lost easily and prematurely before reproducing and insuring the health of their next generation. Birds may swallow them; a wind can shatter them against a window; they may be hit by speeding cars and trucks; they may not find sufficient food; they may succumb to extreme weather events, or be fatally exposed to our pesticides. There are countless dangers in their life – yet, millions survive and in the process lend their beauty and hope to all of us.
The life of the monarch butterfly is especially poignant. Monarch butterflies depend on milkweed for their only food during their larval stage of development. Milkweed is not a favorite plant of humans and so the Monarch's northern habitat with us is increasingly restricted, particularly through application of herbicides and pesticides. While the Monarchs are with us in our warm season, they complete three or more generations or life cycles. Yet the last of these generations, in late August, must migrate up to 3000 miles all the way to a few small sites in the Transvolcanic Mountains in Mexico to overwinter in habitat that is not assured for the future. Unfortunately, the oyamel trees, on which the Monarchs cluster by the millions, are valuable lumber sources that local people depend on for income.
Most remarkably, the 40 – 60% of the Monarchs that survive the winter in Mexico must begin the spring trip back to the north and stop in Texas and other southern states to lay eggs before dying. Their progeny then continue the migration north. Thus, amazingly, the whole population of Monarchs east of the Rocky Mountains heavily depends on the success of a single generation out of about ten generations occurring in succession each year. The survival of the vulnerable wintering generation allows the species to continue from one year to the next.
Perhaps with humans, it is becoming clearer now that our past, present, and future generations are by circumstance not equally responsible for the state of the environment today and in coming decades. Probably the greatest burden for correcting environmental degradation and injustices affecting all of God's creation, and finding a sustainable human life cycle will fall on today's younger generations and their children to come. The best we can hope for is to give support with all the life and energy we are privileged to have left in our time.
Earth Day should not be a token day of momentary environmental awareness. It should at least be an annual day of reflection on our collective progress and commitments in preparing a sustainable future for generations to come. But, why not let every day be an earth day in our lives and actions? Let us try to find more time to share, throughout the year, our experiences and thoughts on these great environmental challenges. How else will we attain a growing, authentic, loving, persistent, feasible body of hopes for sustaining the earth's biosphere and all the diversity of life that makes the creation unique and good in the eyes of God?
There lies in us all a common spiritual need and foundation – it is our best basis for authentic hopes for the future of nature and humanity on planet earth. And it explains why people still look to religion for a path to justice, peace, faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love – it's the binder for all that is good. You can love nature. You must love nature for your own good. We are a part of it and depend on the whole. May we always try harder to support each other and feed the good wolves in all people. After all, what will be the nature of heaven if we leave behind a scorched earth?
