A major report came
out on Nov. 8, 2004 (See:
Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment: Impacts of a warming Arctic) regarding
the melting of ice in the North due to warming temperatures. This
report sent a 'signal' to collective consciousness, one that we are
meant to interact with. The report stated that change in the Arctic is
happening much more quickly than scientists had thought. It also
pointed to the urgent need to stabilize and ultimately to reverse a
process that has already affected the environment greatly, and that
will continue to do so to an even greater degree in the not-too-distant
future. In order to prevent this from happening, a huge shift in human
consciousness is needed. Yet, reflecting the general lack of readiness
for this to happen, news media have barely mentioned this report
following the first day of its publication. Why? Perhaps because it is
not considered important
enough by the government nor by the public, with the exception of
certain 'green groups' who take the findings of such reports very
seriously and who remain aware of the ongoing threat to our planetary
environment.
Such 'green groups' have multiplied in the last several decades,
affecting public awareness in various ways. Yet the urgent call of
these groups for radical change in our priorities is still not in the
foreground of our thinking. Nor is the perspective held by Native
American tribes who strive to represent and protect the planet as a
whole. These guardians of the earth hold something for the rest of the
world that the world cannot yet hold for itself - respect for the earth
and for its essentially sacred nature. More and more in recent years,
they have issued warnings about the changes in the earth that are
already visible, and those that are yet to come.
Some sources of respect are simply practical - the wish to not run
out of food or sources of energy; the wish to not eat contaminated
food; the desire for clean air and clean water to maintain health. But
there are other reasons for respect, spiritual reasons that give
concern - namely, the sense that human beings are greatly out of
balance in their relationship to the earth and that this imbalance
will, in time, bring about an ecological disaster.(See:
The Hopi
Message: An address by Thomas Banyacya).
The indifference of the consuming public to the effect of its
consumption patterns upon the environment and upon other nations and
peoples, is a matter of grave concern - spiritually, ecologically,
socially, and physically. It is, in the end, a threat to life itself.
At the root of this indifference is
unconsciousness.
Unconsciousness creates a sense of heightened reality about what the
self needs, or the family needs, or what those close to us need.
Simultaneously, it allows for the perpetuation of a sense of
unreality
about what the rest of the world needs or what the earth needs. Out of
this unconsciousness grows a self-centeredness that manifests as the
desire 'to have' and 'to possess', and out of this come choices about
what automobiles to buy, how much air conditioning to use, patterns of
energy and fuel consumption, and the
willingness to justify the use of products that pollute the atmosphere.
This is what allows the Arctic Report to go relatively unnoticed. It
goes unnoticed because of: 1) the level of consciousness within the
American public, 2) the
willingness to maintain a more narrow
sphere of reality around the self and the interests of the self, and 3)
a government policy that does not provide sufficient leadership in the
area of environmental awareness. Taken together, these prevent the
expansion of awareness into a more inclusive picture - one that would
involve what is good for the planet as a whole.
In relation to
unconsciousness, we must find a way to be
both compassionate toward it, yet dedicated to the work that can change
it. In relation to change, compassion rather than anger is needed. For
out of compassion can come efforts to educate and to make what is
unknown, known. Out of compassion can also come both an understanding
of the limitations of spiritual awareness which allow for present
values, and a commitment to become more responsible for our own
decisions. Compassion must be present for the earth as well, which
suffers greatly at the hands of individual and governmental
indifference and greed. This precious earth that is meant to nourish
all beings is being depleted by those who are willing to take its
resources and life for granted.
'Unconsciousness' may be said to define our state of mind
before
something is made known to us. It does not involve saying: "I don't
care," but rather "I don't know." "I don't know" means that something
said, or heard, or read about, has not become entirely
real to
us. It may lurk in the background of awareness as something seen in a
news clip, but it does not carry any weight. However, unconsciousness
does not exist in the same way
after information is presented
to us. Then, it may still partake of its former 'unreality', but in the
presence of a confrontation with facts, other, more selfish and fearful
motives become involved. On an individual level, it may be the fear of
needing to spend more or to change one's lifestyle in order to remain
more respectful of the environment. Or, it may be the attachment to
certain comforts and
ways of living which the 'self-centered self' does not want to
relinquish. In relation to the government's response to studies such as
the Arctic Report, economic considerations are also involved,
especially in relation to maintaining ties with large corporations who
may be reluctant to assume the additional expense of retooling
production lines and changing expense/profit margins in order to
protect the earth. For corporations who knowingly continue to maintain
the same level of standards
after a Climate Report has come out
as they did
prior to such a report, and for governments who do
not respond to the growing need to make a radical change in their
priorities, this
turning away from truth is different than
unconsciousness. It is different in that it is more deliberate. It is
more of a statement of having other priorities that are more important.
Turning away,
then, once we are made aware of something, involves a choice with
different values and different karmic implications than simply not
knowing. On a governmental level, it is a choice to not contribute as
much as possible to the health of an entire planet and the people on
it.
PART II.
The complicity between a consuming public and a government which
is more solicitous of corporate interests than of environmental
concerns, is a union that has moved U.S. environmental policy toward a
non-accountability that is similar on the environmental level to the
non-accountability and
'state of
exception' that exists on the political level. In both cases, the
attribute
of power has created an unbridled capacity to operate beyond the
laws that regulate other nations, and to refuse to be accountable to
these laws.
A major example of this orientation has to do with the U.S. choice
in 2001 to not ratify the
Kyoto
Protocols. These Protocols, written in 1997, have made possible a
small but significant step toward controlling greenhouse gas emissions
that affect the atmosphere. U.S. policy justifies this non-compliance
on several grounds: 1) the protection of national economic interests,
2) the idea that the U.S. can create its own standards and monitor its
own emissions in other ways, 3) doubt concerning the seriousness of the
problem of global warming, and 4) the absence of a requirement within
the Protocols for developing nations to curb their emissions as well.
'Environmental unilateralism', based largely on government affiliation
with large corporate interests, is causing the nation that uses the
most
energy in the world to remain unaccountable to the rest of the world in
relation to the effect of its
environmental policies.
A similar 'unilateralism' is evident on the political level -
visible in U.S. policy toward international law, toward institutions
such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, and
increasingly, toward relationships with other nations in general. This
orientation will be tested in the upcoming year in relation to a
foreign aid
bill which comes before Congress in 2005. As a result of this bill,
nations that are not on a 'preferred list' will be refused a
significant amount of economic aid ($2.5 billion totally) if they do
not sign a bilateral immunity agreement (BIA) allowing the U.S. a
'special dispensation' to not be accountable to the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court. Many of the nations most affected by this
bill are the poorer nations of the world. The administration has
already cut off military aid to approximately three dozen countries,
almost all of them underdeveloped nations who had ratified the statute
establishing the International Criminal Court and rejected BIAs. These
nations, more heavily reliant on U.S. aid for development, have payed
and will continue to pay a far greater price for refusing to sign such
bilateral agreements. The kind of economic coercion present in this
foreign aid bill is a demonstration of why there is a rising tide of
hostility toward American policy in much of the rest of the world.
Unilateralism toward the environment, toward international law,
and toward other nations, are tied together by one ribbon, the
ribbon
of power. Behind this, is the attitude that we do something because
we
can do it. We also do it because we need to protect our
'most powerful nation' status from encroachment by anyone else's rules
or standards. This philosophy is a philosophy of
hubris or
pride. It presumes that we not only know what is best for ourselves. We
also know what is best for others. Therefore, we need only be
accountable to ourselves.
Attitudes of non-accountability allow us to remain indifferent to
the voices from many sides which say "this must stop." In relation to
the environment, the attitude that "we know better" has not prevented
94 other nations from
ratifying
the Kyoto Protocols, but it has limited their effectiveness because
of our lack of participation.
The motivation toward power is the
opposite of the
motivation toward love. Love leads to sharing and to cooperation with
others. The striving to have or maintain power does not. Love seeks to
bring into harmony what
we think is best for ourselves, with
what
others think is best for themselves. Love is not an act of
will. It is an act of trust.
The separation of the U.S. from the rest of the world is a
movement that is likely to have grave consequences. Where pride and
power seek their own ends, where self-interest no longer considers the
well-being of all, then the law of Karma comes into play to regulate
that which must change so that harmony for the greater whole is
preserved. This is true not only of the United States but of all
nations and groups who operate under the law of power at the expense of
the Law of Love.
The cost of this karmic balancing can be great. Yet, change is
also possible because spiritual awareness is expanding. To help the
situation, we must all learn to recognize ourselves as participants in
the collective consciousness of the world and become even more
responsible for our own contribution. We need to foster the ideal of
trust over that of self-protection, the willingness to share over the
desire to have. If we begin to see ourselves as citizens of the world,
we can make a start toward counteracting the present trend toward
unilateralism, and infuse this trend with a force of light and love
that seeks another way.
* * * * *
The following link will take you to a summary of the report on
Arctic
warming. This report focuses on the effect that the melting of
glacial ice will have both on wildlife and on people over the course of
the next century, due to the melt of the glacial shelf. The report
states:
"that the Arctic is warming much more rapidly than previously thought,
at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the world, with consequences,
such as a dramatic rise in sea level, that will be global in scope...
Based on five computer models, as well as observations by scientists
and six indigenous people's organizations, the report... predicts
that at least half of the summer sea ice in the Arctic, along with a
significant portion of the huge Greenland ice sheet, will have melted
by the end of this century."
"The impact on the melting of ice and tundra in low latitudes is
certain to be dramatic. Over the past 30 years already, the annual
average sea-ice extent has decreased by eight percent, an area larger
than Texas and Arizona (or Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) combined, and
the trend is accelerating... Some models predict that, by the year
2100, summer sea ice in the Arctic region may have disappeared
completely, resulting in the likely extinction of polar bears and
species of seals that are dependent on sea ice for giving birth and
nursing. Such changes will also have major, potentially catastrophic
impacts on migratory birds and large migratory mammals, such as caribou
and reindeer, as well as the cultures and livelihoods of the indigenous
peoples who have lived in the Arctic regions of North America and
Eurasia for
millennia."
"With the melting of the Arctic ice, average global sea level, which
already rose by eight centimeters, or three inches, in the last 20
years, will rise at an accelerated pace. During this century, the
models predict a rise of between 10 and 90 cms (four inches to three
feet), enough, on the higher end, to inundate southern Florida and much
of Louisiana... The eventual melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, will
increase global sea level about seven meters, or 23 feet."
* * * * *
"Rapid Arctic warming brings calls for Bush to reassess policy." (Nov.
9, 2004)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1109-07.htm
A summary of the report's conclusions.
Kyoto Protocol Fact File
http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/env_facts/kyoto_facts.html
Some basic facts about the Kyoto Protocols.
"A Primer on the Kyoto Protocol."
http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/a/aa090402a.htm
