Return to Sermon Index
 

Another Mother

Rev. Sharon Dittmar
May 12, 2002

In his article, “The Economy & the Earth”, Lester R. Brown writes: 

The issue now is whether the environment is part of the economy or the economy is part of the environment.  Economists see the environment as a subset of the economy.  Ecologists, on the other hand, see the economy as a subset of the environment . . . The differences between ecology and economics are fundamental.  For example, ecologists worry about limits, while economists tend not to recognize any such constraints.  Ecologists, taking their cue from nature, think in terms of cycles, while economists are more likely to think linearly, or curvilinearly.  Economists have a great faith in the market, while ecologists often fail to appreciate the market adequately.[1] 

Brown maintains that economists and environmentalists must work together.  These were the first substantial words I had read about the environment in days.  It wasn’t for lack of trying.  I read UUA materials, articles from recent New York Times, and Internet information.  I read about contentious plans to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Superfund cleanup financing, the legacy of poor management on the Missouri River, and industrial vineyard sprawl in Napa Valley. 

Now that I was paying attention, I was surprised how often environmental issues are in the news.  This spring the Sunday New York Times has published a front-page environmental article just about every other week.   It’s not just spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest.  The environment makes local and national headline news in every state.  There are issues everywhere. 

After reading a variety of articles I reached four conclusions. First, we have no national plan, consensus, or even majority opinion on environmental management.  With a change in every administration comes a change in land use and management, and related issues of preservation, drilling, subsidies, alternative fuels, toxic waste clean up, and chemical use.  These issues are truly too important to yo-yo back and forth every four years.  Second, the extremes on each side of any debate frame the dialogue.  Both sides use misleading statistics and shame based rhetoric.  It was a rare relief to come across articles and web sites that patiently explained both sides of an issue. 

Third, the environmental movement has poor public relations and marketing.  As one environmentally aware person noted “There are too many voices saying too many things at too many times.”  Another environmentally aware person lamented the abstract visioning of the movement.  He explained “It is an issue of practicality in environmental principles.  That is where the debate needs to be, like hybrid cars and limitations on SUVs.”           

Since coming of age I too have been skeptical of the environmental movement as a whole, particularly the disorganization, impracticality, and strident language.  When I have understood an issue and felt that I could do something, I have contributed, recycling even without pick-up, using cloth grocery bags, using a push mower with a small yard, boycotting tuna and grapes in the 1980’s.  The irony, of course, is that to a large extent it has been environmental groups that have brought issues to our attention, dolphins caught in tuna nets, pesticides that made migrant workers sick, the practice of clubbing baby seals for their fur and slaughtering gorillas for their hands – all of this brought to us by environmentalists, researchers, and environmental groups.  Information that we must know if we are to make informed decisions.

My fourth conclusion was the most pressing of all, that under the mismanagement, rhetoric, and poor public relations, something essential feels like it is dying.  I am beginning to think that it is our very souls.  In the words of Chief Seattle “What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit.  For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man.  All things are connected.”[2]

Our environment cuts to our very identity.  We know ourselves in part by the land we inhabit, the weather we feel, the animals we see - the crowded city blocks, the suburban developments, the big sky, the flat plains, the humid river valley, the cool and dry desert evening, the bats, the toads, the trout, the bears.  People don’t just live near the ocean; they are different because of it.  The environment, in part, makes us who we are.

For some the environment presents a moral, ethical, or social justice issue.  For me it is all of these and something deeper, a religious/spiritual, life and death issue.  If Chief Seattle is correct (and I believe that he is) then at a primitive psychological level, humans need animals and wild places, touched only by the natural cycles of nature, in order to live.   “Where is the thicket?  Gone.  Where is the eagle?  Gone.  The end of living and the beginning or survival.” 

This is the desperation felt by environmentally aware individuals, that the sky is really falling and no one cares.  To some extent this is true and it is a dangerous problem.  I came to this realization while reading a New York Times article on Superfund financing.  The Superfund was created in 1980 to clean “orphan” toxic-waste sights in the United States.  Within two years the fund is expected to use $832 million, and then run dry without new tax revenue. 

Above this article was another one entitled “Lawsuit in Texas Challenges Ban on Personal Watercraft in National Parks”.[3]  As the title indicates, by September 15th of this year, personal watercraft (such as Jet Ski) will be banned from all National Seashore Parks.  A relief to most environmentalists and beachgoers including myself, personal watercraft enthusiasts are dismayed.  In the article one enthusiast is quoted saying “When you’re on the seashore, it’s more open, with a long, wide beach . . . would you rather drive along the open winding road in Colorado or on the streets of New York?” 

Clearly, I have radically different environmental values than this enthusiast.  I begin with the premise that we simply are not entitled to everything we want, anytime and place we want it, no matter how fun, beautiful, or educational.  You don’t get to drive everywhere you want no matter how nice the view, just like you can’t yell “Fire” for no reason in a crowded building. 

Listening to watercraft enthusiasts lament restrictions while reading how many millions of dollars are required to clean orphan toxic waste sites, highlights our lack of shared environmental values, or rather, our shared environmental value of every person for him or herself.  As an entire society that lives on one limited planet, excessive individualism cannot sustain our environment.  We will not survive this way, neither spiritually nor economically.

In a speech delivered at the 1999 General Assembly, UU Fred Small notes, “Perhaps the greatest justice issue of all is intergenerational theft.  The Eighth Commandment says “Thou shall not steal,” but every day we live unsustainable we steal from our children and their children.”  He goes on to note that the Iroquois Confederacy shared a Great Law, “In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”[4]  Seven generations.  If only we even thought of two generations in our environmental decision-making. 

This past week I started to ask everyone I met why environmental issues were so destructive and difficult to resolve.  The best answer I received was from someone who does not consider himself an environmentalist.  He said, “It is about greed and gluttony.  We are greedy and gluttonous and under this is suffering and disconnection, which is very hard to heal.  We have to mourn that we can’t be anything other than we are.”

I have thought a lot about these words because I think that they are true, and not what anyone wants to hear.  I am afraid that our initial greed and ultimate disconnection began with our European fore-bearers who willed to us a land conquered under the assumptions of manifest destiny.  Yet even an indigenous population, those people we think of living with the land, would experience conflict with nature in times of population growth or limited resources, which is what all of us face now (“Since 1950 we have added more people to world population than during the preceding 4 million years.”[5]). 

There always has been and always will be a tension between humans and the natural world of which we are a part.  We will never live in complete harmony, and this is a loss.  With our curiosity and intelligence we have the power to alter the environment, to make fire, farm the land, tame animals, build cities, eradicate smallpox, save a life with CPR, conduct genetic research.  This is both good and bad. 

What we need is a larger national discussion, leading to a majority opinion, on consistent, informed environmental management.  I know that many environmentalists are suspicious of the government, and lament the politics and slow rate of change, but ultimately national policy offers the only avenue for comprehensive change.  As one person said to me “Government can be a source of change if you know how to use it.  It is the only source that can do something.  Abandonment of the government as a tool [in this area] is impractical.”

In the absence of a clear national opinion, our default position of individualism is devastating our planet.  However, each of us has the power to choose to live with less damage, to honor societal and environmental need over our own personal wants.

A first step is to acknowledge our personal suffering with compassion.  Without this acknowledgement we cannot share understanding and compassion for the environment.  I know this sounds crazy because the environment is taking such a beating, and many would say that its suffering exceeds that of the people in this room.  But a simple rule of therapy is that if you can’t love yourself, if you can’t have compassion for yourself, if you can’t forgive yourself, then you will be unable to fully love and feel compassion for others, as well as be unable to atone for past wrongdoings.  Personal shame and self-hatred will be too great.  Attempts at change will be derailed by guilt and denial.            Shame does not create meaningful or healthy change, and all too-often it is an excellent excuse to do nothing.   Love, understanding, dialogue, compassion, flexibility, these create change.

A second step is to continue an honest dialogue about the tension between humanity and the natural world.   Environmental issues run the risk of never getting off the ground because at fundamental levels we all “fail” as good environmentalists.  Again, practicality is the key.  We live and work in a metropolitan area.  We live in dwelling places that use gas, electric, sewage, and running water.  Before we even begin we are attached to systems that may not be environmentally economical or friendly, so we have to accept limitations and pick our battles for improvement.  Our home isn’t solar powered, but maybe our next furnace can be energy efficient.  We own two cars, but maybe our two vehicles can be anything other than SUVs.  How can we minimize our personal damage without falling into either despair or neglect?              A third step is to work towards understanding the economy as part of the environment, and understand both economy and environment in partnership (rather than as adversaries).  Brown makes a case for this in his article.  He writes: 

To put ecosystems in economic terms, a natural system, such as a fishery, functions like an endowment.  The interest income from an endowment will continue in perpetuity as long as the endowment is maintained.  If the endowment is drawn down, income declines.  If the endowment is eventually depleted, the interest income disappears.  So it is with natural systems.  If the sustainable yield of a fishery is exceeded, fish stocks begin to shrink.  Eventually stocks are depleted and the fishery collapses.  The cash flow from this endowment disappears, as well, As we begin the 21^st century, our economy is slowly destroying its support systems, consuming its endowment of natural capital.[6] 

Throughout his article, Brown focuses on concrete problems and solutions.  His arguments are persuasive.  He suggests a revolution in thinking (and he is honest enough to admit that it will be a difficult revolution): honestly integrating the cost of environmental sustainability into the economy.  Brown explains: 

Everyone making economic decisions relies on market signals for guidance.  The problem is the market often fails to tell the ecological truth.  It regularly underprices products and services by failing to incorporate the environmental costs of providing them . . . Thus the market price of coal-fired electricity greatly understates its costs to society.[7] 

He explains the difference between wind-powered and coal-powered electricity.  Coal-powered electricity costs less than wind-powered electricity, but that it is because it does not include costs for climate disruption, acid rain, or health costs associated with air pollution.  Brown suggests placing an extra tax on coal-fired electricity that would accurately gage the cost of acid rain, climate change, and air pollution. 

His solution is currently implausible.  I have a difficult time imagining any coal executives agreeing to it.  I can only imagine the ferocious lobbying in Congress, as well as the attempts to unseat any Congressperson who supported such a tax in the next election.  But logically and ultimately, it makes sense.  Our coal is not as cheap as its price, and someday soon we will all pay a far greater price than any tax.  As a consumer, I would like to know the honest price so that I could make better decisions now.

So what can we do here at First Church?  Yesterday, thirty individuals from five different congregations attended a “Green Sanctuary” workshop here at First Church.  The Seventh Principle Project, a grass roots UU movement inspired by our seventh principle, “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”  The mission of the Seventh Principle Project is to “focus on the theological, spiritual, and ethical aspects of human activities that affect the health and sustainability of the living earth.”[8]  Yesterday we discussed suggestions for environmentally friendly living within our congregation. 

The Green Sanctuary movement is very new and still needs work (funding, official UUA staff person), but its work is vital, and needs inclusion in our congregational and association life.  Our presenter yesterday, Katherine Jesch said to us “I want people to understand the complexity of the issues.  We must always consider the best approach given the situation we are in along with our values.  There are no right answers.”

In researching this sermon it actually dawned on me for the first time, how complex, multi-faceted, and vital environmental issues truly are.  We aren’t just talking about a couple of owls and a few loggers.  We are talking about equity (where are trash dumps located?), social justice (why do more urban children suffer with asthma?), extinction (varies species are still facing permanent extinction even in the United States), preservation (25 of the hottest hotspots, occupying 1.4% of the planet’s land surface, are the exclusive homes of 44% of Earth’s plant species and 35% of its animals[9]), money, sustainability, limited energy sources, pollution, real estate, property ownership, problems from former mismanagement, and a host of conflicting needs and wants.

There are not many forums for complex issues today.  Our congregation can be one of them.  We even have skills within our own membership, EPA employees who test water safety and clean toxic waste sights, as well as an epidemiologist and public health official.  I would be curious to hear what any of them would have to say at a forum session on their related field.

In addition, we also have some new opportunities at hand if we complete any type of renovation on our building.  The Green Sanctuary manual recommends a professional energy audit, which sounds like a good idea.  It also suggests recycling.  It is a major effort to recycle for over 300 people.  Can we recycle some things anyway? 

First Church has already made some suggested changes, we have introduced Fair Trade Coffee for our coffee hour, and our endowment is only invested in socially responsible funds.  What else can we do?  As Katherine said yesterday, there are no “right” answers.  I would never recommend applying everything in the “Green Sanctuary” manual in one congregation (that is not how the manual is intended for use), but are some of the suggestions useful, practical, can they help us think of other things we can do?

Perhaps most of all, what sort of leadership role can we take in the community (And I say “most of all” because these are the things we do so well)?  I’m sure I was not the only person who voted against issue 4, the park levy, last week.  I have never voted against a park levy in my life, but this county levy had disturbing implications – the money only went to suburban, not urban parks.  This is a social justice and environmental justice issue.  Although the levy passed, if there are other opportunities to prevent this punitive financing, and the congregation is interested, how can we help? 

Just last week I was asked to serve on a bio-safety research committee at the University of Cincinnati.  I was interested for reasons of research and ethics.  Now when I make my decision as to whether or not to serve, I will also consider that I could be a voice for environmental concerns.  Where is research done, and where are toxins used, on whom or what, for what reason?  These are environmental issues as well.

I am certain that we are spending down our environmental endowment at an unsustainable rate.  Whether we choose to become a “Green Sanctuary”, take a leadership role on local environmental issues, recycle, or not, we are each called to re-examine our environmental legacy.  What legacy will we leave for seven generations?  Understanding our limitations, and the inherent tension between humans and nature, have we done our best to see that we do not die from a great loneliness of the spirit?  Have we done our best to see that our descendents are left with enough to sustain themselves on this precious, finite planet, we call home?

Return to Sermon Index