by Josef Arnould, D.C.
author of American Diet Revolution!
In the race against catastrophic consequences of rapidly rising temperatures on our
planet, we-the experts, the media, and all the rest of us-are failing to face an
inescapable conflict between two realities:
- The prosperity of all wealthy nations is based primarily upon the ever- increasing demand, purchase, and consumption of industrial products by their own citizens and by the citizens of other wealthy nations.
- Continually increasing per capita consumption of industrial goods is ther of increasing global temperatures-due especially to the primary drive combustion of fossil fuels to produce these goods, but also to the dumping of industrial by-products into our waters and lands.
We, all of us, have yet to admit we cannot have it both ways. Continually
increasing demand for industrial products accelerates the accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increases temperatures in the air and water,
melts polar ice, and plasticizes our oceans. In addition, we consumers are using
natural resources faster than the planet can regenerate them. In bio-economic
terms, because we have exceeded its capacity to supply our demands, our planet
cannot maintain homeostasis, that is, stay in balance. By the end of this century, at
the current rate of per capita consumption, global temperatures may be
incompatible with life as we know it for human beings. Over following centuries,
the Earth will heal itself and continue spinning through the universe for billions of
years. Homo sapiens, however, could become yet another extinct species of the
animal kingdom.
As of today, most of us living in wealthy nations have been afraid to acknowledge
that very soon we must cast our ballots in a crucial election. Do we vote to
continue our current levels of consumption and economic prosperity for the next
one or two decades and risk a worldwide environmental catastrophe? Or, instead,
do we throw our support behind a gradually more conservative lifestyle that could
allow our species to survive for many more millennia? We cannot avoid making
our choice much longer. 70% of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer demand,
what economists refer to euphemistically as “Consumer Confidence.” Since 1970,
China has been transformed from a sleepy agrarian society into an industrial
powerhouse because its leaders convinced poor farmers to leave the countryside
for work in big-city factories. Higher earnings by Chinese workers have created an
eager new consumer class that drives their national economy. Thanks to
contemporary advances in telecommunications, billions of other potential consumers, even citizens of the poorest nations of the world, can see and dream of
the ease and luxuries of excessive consumption. Dialing back these desires and
demands for a limitless supply of industrial products will be extremely difficult.
Not recognizing the need to do so could be fatal to our species.
That we have failed yet to confront the conflicting realities of unbridled economic
prosperity versus living in a bountiful natural environment is illustrated best by the
weak and evasive term we use most often to describe this crisis: “Climate
Change.” Those voters who deny we face a humanly caused environmental
emergency are delighted with this expression. The climate in Buffalo, NY changes
each month, sometimes day to day. If you fly from Buffalo to Miami, the climate
has changed. “So what? The climate has always been changing,” say these deniers.
“Climate Change” is a non-committal way to describe a result; it does not identify
the extent, the urgency, or the cause of our predicament. This cowardly term
disguises that we are living far beyond the levels of extraction and usage our planet
can sustain. In its place, we must state openly and honestly we have created a
“Global Pollution Crisis” that is heating our atmosphere to temperatures
inconsistent with the continuing existence not only of our own species, but also of
most other animal species with whom we should be sharing the planet. According
to the World Wildlife Fund, the population of wild animals on Earth has declined
by nearly 70% over the past 50 years. The population of insects is also declining
precipitously. If our planetary roommates vanish, so do we.
Okay, so what can we do as individual citizens? Do sit back and whimper
ignorantly and helplessly about “Climate Change?” Do we wait for elected leaders
of national and international governing bodies to enact legislation that will reverse
the Global Pollution Crisis? Can we realistically expect these leaders to commit
political suicide? They know continuing excessive consumption is what drives the
economic prosperity of their countries and keeps them in favor with most of their
voters. Although many of these leaders may mean well, they lack the power or the
will to make changes sufficient to restore homeostasis to our planet.
Can we depend instead upon the leaders of industry and science to come up with
technological breakthroughs that will reduce our carbon footprints to levels
compatible with human life? Electric cars, windmills, and nuclear fusion are
amazing industrial and scientific inventions. Unfortunately, even these and other
technological innovations will not be sufficient or happen soon enough to
compensate for the destructive planet-wide effects of excessive consumption.
Can we depend upon the world marketplace, the laws of supply and demand, to
correct excessive consumption of Earth’s natural resources in time to reverse the
Global Pollution Crisis? The same motives that drive the prosperity of wealthy
nations also drive corporations and investors. When demands exceed supply in the
global marketplace, corrections will occur, but far too slowly to retard the
relentless rise in temperatures of this planet.
If we cannot depend upon leaders of national governments and international
organizations, upon technological breakthroughs, upon benevolent industrial
corporations, or upon the global marketplace, who is left? Who or what group can
act to curb the rises in CO2 levels, ambient temperatures, and sea levels? Only us.
We and our personal actions are upon whom the future of our species on this planet
depends most.
This responsibility begets a question: What actions can we take, as little
individuals, that great nations, world leaders, international agencies, major
corporations, and marketplace investors are afraid to take? Our answer is: We can
vote, not with ballots, but with our pocketbooks. We can vote by changing what
products and how much of them we demand, purchase, and consume. Our
collective patterns of consumption not only dictate the wealth of nations; they also
determine the health of our environment. Before we explore how to change our
patterns of consumption, however, it is essential to review the circumstances in
which we and our ancestors have lived on this planet for quite some time.
Historians, archeologists, and anthropologists frequently describe the environment
of Earth over the past 12,000 years as “Goldilocks Conditions.” For most of this
period, we and our animal friends have been blessed with moderate temperatures
over much of the Earth’s land mass, with seas teaming in aquatic life, with
stunning natural beauty, and with an abundance of mineral treasures so close to the
planet’s surface that they can be extracted easily. Due to human ingenuity, we have
used these resources to create an incredible array of artifacts, machines, buildings,
roads, bridges, and millions of other inventions. Over many centuries, these
creations have made our lives less physically arduous, more exciting, more varied,
and more meaningful. More recently, during the past few centuries, we have
learned how to create vast amounts of energy by incinerating the oily remains of
creatures who died millions of years ago. This new source of energy accelerated
rapidly our capacity to manufacture even greater quantities of labor-saving,
lifesaving, luxurious, and highly profitable products. Production and purchase of
industrially manufactured goods has made possible the accumulation of vast
wealth by nations, by groups, and by individuals. The burning of fossil fuels for
energy has also made it possible for the population of our species to expand
rapidly, especially during the past 100 years. We are approaching a population of 9
billion human beings.
What we have failed to realize, or have been unwilling to consider, during the past
few hundred years is that there are profound consequences to vast expansions of
both the total human population and the collective consumption of industrial
products by the individuals in that population. Foremost among these
consequences is that burning fossil fuels to produce an unlimited supply of human
trinkets, luxuries, and necessities has seriously degraded the atmosphere of the
planet. The “Goldilocks Conditions,” which heretofore we had assumed would be
there for us to enjoy always, are disappearing rapidly.
Individually, no one person can control or reverse the expansion of our population.
Individually, however, we can control our personal habits and consumption of
industrial products. In a contested worldwide election, each of us has a personal
opportunity cast a vote, either for saving and improving our natural environment or
for the continuation of limitless consumption for temporary national and personal
wealth. As individuals, your vote and my vote may or may not produce the
electoral outcome we desire. When we vote, however, we perform our civic duty
as citizens of planet Earth. We have voted for life. That sounds great, but how
specifically do we vote?
Environmental Tithing
For centuries, many different religions of the world have achieved and maintained
economic stability by tithing, that is, by requesting or requiring members of their
congregations to contribute 10% of their income to support their faith. This is a
model which we can use, with one important modification, to rescue the planet
from life-threatening heat caused by our excessive demand, production, purchase,
and use of industrial goods. This revised model is Environmental Tithing, the
reverse of religious tithing. Instead of contributing 10% of one’s income to save
the environment, each environmental tither pledges to reduce personal
consumption of industrial goods by 10% every year for 10 years. Because a tither’s
total consumption would decline with each passing year, by the tenth year, his or
her annual consumption of industrial products will have been reduced by
approximately 50% relative to what it is today. At first glance, reducing personal
consumption by this much might seem to be an impossible goal. However, by
doing so in gradual steps over a decade, each of us can achieve this goal. It is the
magnitude of commitment we must make if we are voting for a healthful
environment that young children of today can enjoy with their great grandchildren
in the year 2100 and beyond.
If you think reducing personal consumption of industrial products by 50% is
unrealistic, look carefully at all the stuff sitting in your basement, your attic, and
your garage. Some of it has been untouched for years. In your local landfill, check
out the mountains of discarded industrial goods, much of it of recent vintage. And
what about the house down the street with six cars parked in the yard and tall
barrels of junk waiting on the curb to be picked up every week? The evidence is
visible. Most of us are excessive consumers. Because we live in a very wealthy
country, too easily we can buy much more stuff than we really need or even want.
If we do not have the cash on hand, we buy it on credit. In short, we must realize
that the gifts of a bountiful environment on this planet are not in infinite supply.
Just because we have the economic opportunity to buy vast amounts of shiny new
artifacts that any entrepreneur can dangle before our eyes does not mean we should
purchase them. To rescue our environment, we must become more thoughtful and
conservative about the items we buy and how we use them. Sacrificing the
temporary pleasure of habitually buying the latest model of car, cell phone, or
widescreen TV is a small investment to make for the long-term health of our
brethren human beings and animal friends.
At the macro level, economists would be concerned about the recessionary effects
of environmental tithing. Over the course of a decade, however, an annual 10%
reduction in consumption by a small but growing segment of the world population
would give investors and the marketplace ample time to adjust to the changes in
demand. Furthermore, if the votes cast for environmental tithing increase over the
next ten years, as they must, the benefits of improved health of our citizens and a
reduction in the projected temperatures of our environment will help, rather than
hinder, economic stability.
In practical terms, how can an individual begin Environmental Tithing? Before
making any significant purchase, you simply ask yourself three questions.
Is this an object I truly need?
Will this object make life significantly better for someone?
Is this product beneficial for the environment of Earth?
If you cannot answer, “Yes” to at least one of these questions, consider it to be a
non-purchase and, therefore, one of your tithing commitments to the health of the
planet and to the health of your descendants. By not purchasing industrial products
that you, your business, or your loved ones do not really need, you are casting your
vote in an election to determine if there is a future for our would-be descendants on
this planet. It is an election that pits candidate F-“Let’s demand and grab all we
can get today”-against candidate E-“I am willing to forego a tenth of what I
used to buy for a chance at a healthier environment for all living creatures now and
in the future.”
Could voluntary environmental tithing become a significant part of a solution for
the Global Pollution Crisis? In 2023, very few voters in the human electorate will
be aware of, let alone vote for, this concept. Over the next decade, however, more
citizen voters will realize it is simply a contemporary adaptation of an old system
for creating economic stability in one’s faith. Our awareness of and support for
environmental tithing, or a similar systematic method of reducing unconscionably
excessive consumption, will gain voter support each year. Within a decade,
Environmental Tithers will be seen as a significant voting bloc in the coalition of
groups working to elect candidate E, a greener, cleaner, and cooler planet Earth. As
in any democratic election, however, the outcome may not be as we had hoped.
The future of our species remains in jeopardy. Nevertheless, every one of us who
works hard for and votes for our candidate will enjoy the spiritual reward of
knowing we have expressed our faith in humankind and offered our gratitude for
the opportunity to live, love, learn, work, and vote on such an incredibly beautiful
and bountiful planet.
Josef Arnould, D.C.
Comments are closed.