Can a public justice lens frame the climate change debate?

The attention of the world has been focused on Copenhagen from December 7 – 18 for the U.N. Summit on Climate Change. Following the Kyoto Accord which entered into force in 2005, 192 nations are trying to decide on a post-2012 strategy to address global warming. Success is far from guaranteed at what has been referred to as “the single most contentious global negotiation ever carried out.” But how one frames success is crucial to an understanding of what this event, and the issue of global warming, is all about.

Even global advertising agencies are working hard to frame the event. They have launched the “Hopenhagen” website, where massive corporations like Coca Cola (purveyors of bottled water), Dupont (producers of herbicides), BMW (car manufacturers) urge the signing of a petition to set binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

Some media reports simplify the Copenhagen dynamic as environmental “activists” against government “leaders.” The activists are on the outside, carrying out attention-seeking stunts, such as hanging banners from buildings, while the government negotiators work around the clock in stuffy rooms, hammering out “consensus.” For its part, environmental groups have declared Canada a “Fossil” for the first days of the negotiations, and British columnist George Monbiot described our government’s bargaining stance as that of “the real villain.” The head of the U.N.’s scientific panel on climate change undiplomatically uttered, “In the last couple of years, I’m afraid, Canada has not been seen as sitting at the table.”

CPJ frames issues in terms of public justice. Does public justice have anything to say about these global warming debates?

According to CPJ’s guiding document, “Rooted in Scripture, public justice unfolds in human history as God continues with redemptive work in creation… Public justice functions as a norm to use in analyzing current realities, forming policy options and assessing impacts of governing actions or inaction.”

Perhaps the following five norms could provide a useful beginning for persons desirous of using a public justice lens to aid their reflection on global warming and assist in wading through the media coverage of the Copenhagen Summit:

• Respect for Life: The creation story in Genesis reveals that God created this beloved world, declared it to be “very good,” and delivered it to the care of humans. Therefore, the destruction of the good work of God, and even of life itself, is hardly a respectful human response. Many of us can think of moments spent before the awesome sights of nature – powerful storms, towering mountains, the immensity of the sea, and the beauty of a sighting of a new or rare species of animal – as times when the presence of the Creator seemed very real. If global warming drives species towards extinction, intensifies natural disasters and threatens human health, then it becomes a life issue.
• Advancing the Common Good: The role of government is not just to assure that individuals are free to enter into contracts and relationships of their choosing. Government exists also to help society’s varied institutions and communities contribute to the common good. Some authority is needed to ensure a healthy environment for all. The private sector has a role to play in mitigating the effects of climate change, but the unregulated market has not been able to respond to the climate crisis. The principle of the common good may come ahead of individual claims to profit, leisure and personal choice. And the common good surely does not mean that the 400 million people in India who currently live without a light bulb will be expected to pay for adapting industrial economies to a low carbon future. Rather, adaption strategies should be financed by the economies which have the most capacity - those which have already benefited from the current development model.
• The Interconnection of all Processes: the discipline of ecology teaches that no one solution exists to any of the major issues humanity faces. Manipulation of one aspect of biology has repercussions for other aspects, and the same is true of societies. Thus, it is not enough to “save the environment”, without also working to redress current injustices among persons and communities who suffer poverty or are excluded from full participation in development.
• Sustainability: The Exodus story of the provision of manna cautions against the human urge to take too much of anything. Rather, according to the injunction in Luke 12:15, we should “guard against every form of greed.” Since future generations of families also have a right to the goods of creation, we cannot over-consume and deny our grandchildren a healthy and secure life. Economic, social and ecological sustainability are irrevocably connected. Yet levels of greenhouse gases have been rising every year since records started to be kept in 1998. And Canada not only broke its promise to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Accord, but has increased them by over 26%.
• Peace: In January 2007 the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock closer to midnight not only because of nuclear weapons, but also due to the growing threat posed by climate change. Due to increased migration and regional rivalries for scarce resources caused by climate change, NATO has been advised to increase its weaponry. To decrease the ecological destruction that all wars magnify, it is imperative to prevent the devastation that climate change wreaks upon the most troubled and defenseless corners of the planet.

The World Council of Churches asked all faith communities to ring their bells on December 13th, and religious leaders from a wide variety of religions have spoken out for a climate accord in Copenhagen. The moral problem of global warming requires public justice as a necessary response.