• Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives

in service of the
​common good

time to stand up

8/10/2018

4 Comments

 
​ 
There are crucial moments when individuals, families, and nations must decide whose side they are on. Now is such a moment in relation to the future of the planet and its climate. It appears that our government has decided not to be on the side of future generations and their right to economic and social stability, stability dependent upon climatic stability. For this reason, John Hewson, previous leader of the Liberal party, is absolutely right to have entered the Warringah bi-election with the mantra ‘vote for anyone other than the Liberals’. 
 
No matter what policies the Coalition might have that can be deemed superior to their opponents, their abject failure to secure a climate policy renders them unfit to govern at this crucial juncture of human life on this planet. The Prime Minister’s claim that we will ‘meet our Paris commitment in a canter’ would be comical if it were not so serious, - it is even at odds with analysis he will have received.  There is absolutely no scientific evidence to back that claim, indeed the evidence is clearly the reverse.
 
Of course, if we achieved zero emissions tomorrow we would not, on our own, save the planet: this is absolutely true.  But that is to entirely miss the point.  The globe will meet the necessary goal if and when there are enough nations pulling in the right direction and putting pressure on those who are not.  By our inaction we are giving solace to all who are not pulling their weight, and we are doing it from one of the most advantaged positions on the planet. We have the skills and resources to more than pull our weight and we can do it without placing an impossible financial burden upon our citizens.  Why do we scare people with the thought of legs of lamb costing more than $100 etc?  Because politicians are obligated to powerful and cashed up lobbyists – that’s why.
 
The latest IPCC report, released this week, should scare everyone. That it does not is due to several factors. Chief amongst whom is that the mining industry, like the tobacco industry before it, pours enormous amounts of money into ‘think tanks’ that demand their arguments be taken as seriously as the overwhelming weight of the world’s scientific community. This is trading on the important principle of there being ‘two sides to every story’.  But this principle is not universally applicable. We rely on a justice system that weighs evidence. If an alternative view were allowed no one would ever be convicted. A person is found guilty or innocent on the basis of evidence.  The world’s scientists, from a range of disciplines, examining the evidence before them have consistently come to the same diagnosis in relation to the climate, and have provided ameliorating options.  To ignore, or worse belittle, their findings, or suggest there is an alternative view, is recklessly irresponsible.
 
From my days as a theological student in the 1960’s I have sought to comprehend what is meant by truth and how its application shapes the direction of one’s life.   I have come to understand the notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ to be ethical applications of universal or absolute truth. Universal human rights depend upon this principle. We cannot pick and choose.  These rights apply to people of all ethnicities, all religions, all cultures.  What is life giving must be life giving for all, what is life denying diminishes all. For good to be good it must also be common 
 
It is this fundamental understanding of good and evil that makes populist nationalism and patriotism so dangerous.   While tyranny and dictatorship are on the increase, not in decline, just as serious is the increasing trend in western democracies to put ‘America first’, put ‘Australia first’.  Such rhetoric emanating from the president of the United Sates and mimicked by others including members of our own government, works on a false premise. It is entirely wrong to assume that Australia’s best interest is somehow different to, or independent from, global best interest.  
 
We human beings are utterly dependent upon the health and wellbeing of the planet we share with 7.7 billion others.  It is extraordinary that politicians like Craig Kelly can be so utterly dismissive of this fundamental reality. It is a universal good to put the health of the planet above most other considerations because (apart from the rights of the nonhuman world) the continuation of our species depends on it. Climate action is not lowering priority for human need, it is taking human need, dependent on climatic stability, very seriously.
 
The flip side of truth as an absolute verity is its relational application known morally in the expressions ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.   Right and wrong are not absolutes but circumstantial. Let me give an example from Australia’s ‘unfinished business’. All Australians are equal, and all have the same rights under law. However, the circumstances of Australia’s indigenous people are such that it is right that provision be made constitutionally to address that uniqueness.  Equally it was very wrong of the government to be so dismissive of the Uluru statement from the heart.
 
There are several circumstantial factors in relation to climate that make Australia’s position morally indefensible - wrong.
 
·         Per capita we have been amongst the world’s worst polluters. This is coming down. It should.
·         Our continent is very vulnerable. Climate change consequences to farmers alone are almost incalculable. The long drought is warning enough. We cannot fix this on our own, but not to be in the front line of those who want to is inexcusable
·         Our most iconic natural asset is the Great Barrier Reef.  It is World Heritage listed, meaning we are this asset’s custodians for the whole world.  While science is about diagnosis not prognosis the writing is clearly on the wall.  That the government is so non-committal (notwithstanding the very controversial $.5B splash) and seeks to support a provenly corrupt Indian mining company, is beyond the wit of my limited intellect to understand.  Barrier Reef dependent employment will always outnumber employment in an increasingly automated industry by multiple factors.
·         Sources of renewable energy in Australia are abundant and the technology necessary to develop them is both proven and cost effective in comparison with fossil fuel. In addition, renewable energy will provide a flood of employment opportunity in regional Australia.
·         Climate sceptics bang on about the need for base-load which, they argue, only coal can provide.  In an energy sector which is increasingly diverse baseload is no longer the key, dispatchable energy is the key.  SA’s mega-battery and the development of stored hydro will provide this flexibility far more cheaply than previous reliance on costly baseload.
·         We have the intellectual, economic and technical capacity to move much more quickly in the right direction. Not to do so is morally wrong.
 
Australia has never been in greater need of genuine leadership.  Malcom Turnbull did not lose the Prime Ministership because he wanted to move on climate change, he lost the leadership because he did not act and as a consequence allowed a conservative rump to fill the space.  It seems most unlikely that Prime Minster Morrison or Premier Berejiklian will offer any leadership.  (When given the chance Premier Berejiklian recently and notoriously backed the State’s biggest bully.  It is up to the Australian people, especially people of faith, to take the lead and to express it at the ballot box.
4 Comments
Michael O’Hara
9/10/2018 02:54:28 pm

I am in furious agreement. My comment is that there are many countries whose overall emissions are low in comparison to America, China, And India. But if you add all those countries together their emissions become significant. If all those countries take the business as usual view of the Australian Coalition Government then the world has no chance of keeping warming below 2c.

Reply
Dr. Garry de Jager
16/10/2018 03:21:03 am

Dear Dr. Browning,
I was encouraged by two esteemed acquaintances of yours, Dr. & Dr. Riley, to read your Blog.
I find your articles well written, and leaving no doubt about how you feel on each issue.
But...is it really the role of recently retired religious leader to comment so vigorously on secular matters -- many of which are very complex, but "made simple" by your good self, and accompanied by little disguised condemnation of one side. I believe this "partisanship" does you no favours.
For instance, in your condemnation of Israel during the large protests by Gazans on the border in their 6 week campaign, you didn't actually zero in on what their protests were formally about. Previous occupation of Gaza by Israel? No. The Israeli blockade? Yes, but not the major issue. Refusal by Israel to provide electricity or water? No. Actually they have rejected several offers. The Israeli's winning of the 6 day war in 1967 and replacing rulership by Egypt & Jordan? No. The Israelis winning the Yom Kipper war? No. Then what?
It was to be 6 weeks of protest leading up to "Nakba Day", our May 15th. The "Day of Catastrophe" mourning the UN decision to divide the Holy Land into 6 cantons -- 3 non-contiguous for the Arabs, and 3 non-contiguous for the Jews. On its passing the UN, supported by most European countries & Russia & America, the Arabs refused to accept the decision, promising to fight. Israel unilaterally declared a state. Both sides scrambled to carve out viable contiguous areas, the Arabs thinking their brethren in the Middle East would support them. Only Jordan provided any major resistance, and the Arabs ended up with less than the UN had offered them.
Nakba Day was observed somewhat from the beginning, then Arafat made it a formal day, and Shia Iran is now the most energetic supporter of the day. So Hamas in those 6 weeks was basically saying what they have always said "The land belongs to us. You have no part or lot in it. We don't accept a two state solution. Yes, temporarily as a pathway to the one state solution, might be acceptable.
One wonders, why you comment on this in your discourse. Or that Israel sees this as an existential threat to its right to even exist. Although you correctly point out that they might have chosen more subtle methods than sharp-shooters.
Garry de Jager, Brisbane, 16 October 2018

Reply
good writing service link
17/1/2019 02:53:39 am

You are right buddy, there are some important moments in our lives when our selves are become bounded for taking of side. On those moments some people feel very tough and try to keep their selves’ away but didn’t.

Reply
buy custom assignment link
7/2/2019 09:11:40 pm

It is the time for the standing ovation for the audience. All the challenges of the life are met on the standing posture. The range of the problematic solution is indulged for the future and prospective items for the clips of the community.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe


    ​Author

    ​Bishop George Browning. 
    ​Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn 1993 - 2008.

    ​Inaugural chair Anglican Communion Environment Network

    ​PhD Thesis: Sabbath and the Common Good: An Anglican response to the Environmental Crisis.

    D.Litt. Honoris Causa for contribution to Education

    Centenary Medal 2000 for Service to cmmunity

    ​Patron: Australia Palestine Advocacy Network

    Patron: Palestinian Christians in Australia

    Patron: Sabeel

    ARCHIVE

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Publications

    Sabbath and the Common Good: Prospects for a New Humanity, Echo Books 2016

    ​Not Helpful: Tales from a truth teller, Echo Books 2021

    Links​

    Barbara May Foundation

    ​Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture

    Australia Palestine Advocacy Network

    ​Christians for an Ethical Society


Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives