Download Religious engagement in the interface between ethics, policy and

http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz
ResearchSpace@Auckland
Copyright Statement
The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New
Zealand).
This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of
the Act and the following conditions of use:
•
•
•
Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or
private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any
other person.
Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the
author's right to be identified as the author of this thesis, and due
acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate.
You will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from
their thesis.
To request permissions please use the Feedback form on our webpage.
http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/feedback
General copyright and disclaimer
In addition to the above conditions, authors give their consent for the digital copy
of their work to be used subject to the conditions specified on the Library Thesis
Consent Form and Deposit Licence.
Combating Climate Change:
Religious engagement in the interface between
ethics, policy and law
Angela Jean Thomson
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Law, the University of Auckland, 2014.
ii
Abstract
This dissertation is an explorative research paper with a central aim of exploring the
potential for religious voice to become a leading moral authority within the
international climate change arena. The thesis begins by reviewing the current
climate change regime, noting that an ethical and/or moral response is urgently
required but largely absent. The paper suggests religion has the required
ethical/moral basis and capacity to carry ethical values more prominently into the
international climate change arena. The proactive viewpoints of the world’s five
major religions and the numerous interreligious partnerships on climate change
issues indicate an increasing trend by religions to actively participate in climate
change initiatives.
Secularisation theory and the assumption held by many that religion does not
belong in the public sphere is slowly dissipating, paving the way for active
collaboration between secular and religious institutions. Evaluation of the current
influence and relevance of religion within the international law arena indicates that
UN bodies are increasingly amenable to religious participation. The thesis proposes
that religious voice can improve the quality of decision-making within the climate
change regime and this can be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms via
the UNFCCC or directly through the United Nations system.
The research intersects with both religion and law and thus necessitates an
interdisciplinary approach. This involves drawing appropriate information from both
law and theology in order to redefine problems outside of normal climate change
governance boundaries and to reach solutions based on these new understandings.
iii
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to express much gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Klaus
Bosselmann, who has allowed me to work at my own speed and under my own
steam throughout the entire doctoral process, but has always been readily available
whenever I required help or a general catch-up. I would also like to express gratitude
to my co-supervisor, Professor Elaine Wainwright.
I extend my appreciation to the staff members of the University of Auckland Law
Faculty and the Postgraduate Centre for all their support and helpfulness.
Much love and thanks to Phil for supporting my research and holding the fort at
home on many occasions. Without his support, my journey would have been much
more difficult.
Also much love to my nine children - Jeremy (now embarking on his own PhD
journey), Christopher, Benjamin, Mathew, Brittany, Sara-Jane, Samuel, Thomas,
and Katie. My apologies to you all for more often than not being too busy to spend
the quality time we should have enjoyed over the past eleven years of my student
life! I love you all very much and you now have my undivided attention! Sam – my
special boy who has cerebral palsy – you never complain and are always full of
smiles and giggles – you are truly an inspiration to everyone who knows you.
To all my friends, especially Annie McFadyen, Anne Napier, Kirsty Millett, and
Professor Ravi Prakash (India) - thank you for your love, patience, understanding,
and encouragement throughout the past four years.
To my law school colleagues (undergraduate and post-graduate) who are now
working in many parts of the world – I thank you all for allowing me to be a part of
your academic journey and thank you for being a part of my own journey. Special
thanks go to Dr. David Griffiths and Dr. An Hertogen who were my first real contacts
in the world of independent PhD research. Fellow candidates at the time, they made
me feel at home on the 7th floor and are living proof that we can achieve our dreams
with much hard work!
A very special acknowledgement goes to Deborah (Debbie) Hineikauia AmoamoSmart, who sadly passed away near completion of her final undergraduate law year.
She was awarded her degree posthumously and made all that knew her very proud.
Debbie, you were one smart cookie and I miss our lunchtime debates in the
cafeteria!
v
vi
If you don’t like the way the world is, you change it. You have an obligation
to change it. You just do it one step at a time.
Marian Wright Edelman
vii
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background to the research study ....................................................................................1
1.2. Holistic worldview ..............................................................................................................1
1.3. Research area of study .....................................................................................................3
1.4. Research questions and intended contribution ................................................................4
1.5. Research methodology .....................................................................................................5
1.5.1. Secularisation Theory ................................................................................................5
1.5.2. Empirical data .............................................................................................................6
1.6. Thesis structure.................................................................................................................7
The Climate Change Regime and Options for Reform ...........................................11
2.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................11
2.2. Brief history of climate change science ..........................................................................12
2.3. Evolution of the climate change regime .........................................................................14
2.3.1. Timeline of climate change action ...........................................................................15
2.3.2. International climate change action – (1970-1990 era) ...........................................23
2.3.3. International climate change action – (1991-present time) .....................................31
2.4. The challenges of climate change for existing governance mechanisms .....................42
2.5. Options for reform ...........................................................................................................45
2.5.1. The “compliance model”...........................................................................................46
2.5.2. The “new agency model”..........................................................................................46
2.5.3. The “upgrading UNEP model”..................................................................................47
2.5.4. The “organizational streamlining model” .................................................................47
2.5.5. The “multiple actors’ model” .....................................................................................48
2.6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................48
The Ethical Implications of Climate Change ...........................................................51
3.1. 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................51
3.2. Defining Ethics ................................................................................................................51
3.3. The importance of an ethical viewpoint to climate change dialogue .............................53
3.3.1. The marginalisation of ethics in climate change discussions ..................................55
3.3.2. Specific climate change ethical issues ....................................................................57
3.3.2.1. Responsibility for damages ...............................................................................58
3.3.2.2. Atmospheric targets...........................................................................................59
ix
3.3.2.3. Allocating greenhouse gas emissions reductions .............................................60
3.3.2.4. Scientific uncertainty .........................................................................................62
3.3.2.5. Cost to national economies ...............................................................................63
3.3.2.6. Independent responsibility to act ......................................................................65
3.3.2.7. Potential new technologies ...............................................................................65
3.3.2.8. Procedural fairness ...........................................................................................66
3.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................67
Religious Perspectives on Climate Change ............................................................69
4.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................69
4.2. Defining religion ..............................................................................................................69
4.3. Religion as a source of political morality ........................................................................75
4.3.1. Numbers of adherents..............................................................................................77
4.3.2. Unity of purpose .......................................................................................................80
4.3.3. Sustainable practices ...............................................................................................82
4.3.4. Notions of justice ......................................................................................................84
4.3.5. Reverence for nature ...............................................................................................84
4.3.6. Key leadership roles in environmental issues .........................................................86
4.3.7. Story-telling as an environmental awareness teaching tool ....................................88
4.3.8. Physical and financial resources .............................................................................89
4.3.9. A Case Study - World Council of Churches ............................................................90
4.4. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu and Buddhist Perspectives on climate change .........96
4.4.1. Christianity ................................................................................................................96
4.4.2. Islam .......................................................................................................................102
4.4.3. Judaism ..................................................................................................................107
4.4.4. Hinduism.................................................................................................................111
4.4.5. Buddhism................................................................................................................114
4.5. Interfaith partnerships for climate change ....................................................................118
4.5.1. The United Nations World Charter for Nature .......................................................125
4.5.2. The Assisi Declarations .........................................................................................126
4.5.3. Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) ......................................................129
4.5.4. The Forum on Religion and Ecology (FORE) ........................................................131
4.5.5. Parliament of World Religions and Declaration towards a Global Ethic ...............133
4.5.6. The Earth Charter ..................................................................................................138
4.6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................142
The Nexus between Religion and Law .................................................................143
5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................143
5.2. History of secularisation ................................................................................................144
x
5.2.1. Concepts of the secular ........................................................................................ 147
5.2.2. Rejecting secularist theories ................................................................................. 151
5.2.3. Dualism .................................................................................................................. 156
5.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 158
Placing Religion within the International Arena ................................................... 161
6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 161
6.2. The extent of current interactions with religious organisations at the UN .................. 163
6.3. The Religion Counts Report ........................................................................................ 164
6.4. Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy ................................. 168
6.5. The World Bank and the World Faiths Development Dialogue .................................. 170
6.6. Obstacles facing religious engagement in the international arena ............................. 177
6.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 179
Proposals for the Establishment of a Religious Body at the UN ......................... 181
7.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 181
7.2. Establishment of an interreligious organisation under UNFCCC ................................ 181
7.2.1. Current structure of the UNFCCC ......................................................................... 181
7.2.2. Articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC (objective and principles) ................................. 184
7.2.3. Establishment of an Ethical Panel for Climate Change under UNFCCC ............. 184
7.3. Establishment of Interreligious Council at the UN ....................................................... 187
7.3.1. Function and mandate .......................................................................................... 190
7.3.2. Covenant/Charter .................................................................................................. 190
7.3.3. Structure and representation ................................................................................ 191
7.3.4. Incorporation into the UN system ......................................................................... 193
7.4. Obstacles to the proposal for a religious/civil society organisation at the UN ............ 197
7.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 203
Thesis Summary ................................................................................................... 205
8.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 205
8.2. Contribution of my research......................................................................................... 205
8.3. Research objectives and research outcomes ............................................................. 206
8.4. Recommendations for future research ........................................................................ 209
8.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 210
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 213
APPENDIX A: The Evangelical Climate Initiative .................................................................. 215
APPENDIX B: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity .......................................................... 219
APPENDIX C: Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration ................................................ 222
APPENDIX D: World Charter for Nature ................................................................................ 233
APPENDIX E: The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders .... 240
xi
APPENDIX F: The Earth Charter ............................................................................................242
APPENDIX G: Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change & Religious Traditions Call to
Climate Action ..........................................................................................................................248
APPENDIX H: High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and
Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace ........................................................251
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................259
xii
Introduction
1.1. Background to the research study
The background to this research study proceeds from the assumption that it is not
currently possible to find a single, comprehensive legal response to the problems
associated with anthropogenic climate change. Although the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol have
played key roles in driving and guiding the development of global climate change
law, the real challenge lies in the realisation that it is not simply about reforming the
current state-centred regime. Ethical considerations are also imperative to
configuring a climate change response strategy that will prevent a catastrophic
outcome. However, these considerations are largely absent from policy reform
options. From within this context the dissertation will pursue practical solutions to
the ‘ethics and morality’ challenge. It will develop a reform option that utilises the
wisdom of the world’s religions and their common interest of protecting the global
environment. The dissertation proposes active collaboration between religious
organisations and the United Nations in order to provide the mechanisms required
for more ethical decision-making.
This introductory chapter will provide the necessary background material for the
subsequent chapters. It will begin with a brief explanation of the author’s holistic
worldview which informs the overall approach and argument of the thesis. It will then
describe the research area of study before introducing the research questions and
intended contributions. A brief description of the applied methodology will follow. A
structural overview of the thesis will complete the chapter.
1.2. Holistic worldview
The author of this dissertation is an advocate for the holistic worldview and it is this
perspective that underlies the thesis research. Presently, much of humanity views
life through a mechanistic lens.1 This worldview is based on four central grounds.
First, scientific knowledge can achieve absolute and final certainty. Second, the
dynamic of the whole can be understood from the property of the parts. Third, the
world is dualistic – in which mind is superior to body, humans are superior to nature,
the rational is superior to the non-rational, and objectivity is superior to subjectivity.
Fourth, the common good is intensified when the potential and material wealth of
Adrian Villasenor Galarza “Holistic Worldview: Towards an Integral Understanding of the Personal and the Scientific” Ludis
Vitalis, vol XVI, num 30, 2008, pp 197-203.
1
1
the individual is maximised.2 This emphasis on rationality, the individual, freedom,
science, progress and technology has resulted in the placement of the supernatural
and the symbolical to the private sphere.3 It has also resulted in the regulation and
exploitation of nature; and in the ‘myth of progress’ which contends that technology,
capitalist industry, and science will lead to happiness.4 By viewing the world in this
reductionist way, humanity has lost all sense of belonging to nature, and an overall
feeling of emptiness and loss of value has ensued. 5 Conversely, the holistic
worldview understands reality in terms of relationships and appeals to the subjective,
feelings, values and consciousness. 6 This worldview observes the world as a
community of subjects that includes all living beings which share the planet with
humankind. It is based on interconnectedness and oneness – everything exists in
relationship to everything else.7 It emphasises the need to rebuild communities in
which people take responsibility for the ecosystem of which they are a part; it focuses
on development of just relations between humans and an equitable distribution of
resources; it also stresses the importance of forming compassionate solidarity
between peoples instead of competitive individualism. It accepts the mechanistic
vision of measurement and quantities (facts and figures), but it also accords the
same weight to qualities (the values-base that underpins this thesis). In relation to
climate change and other environmental issues – facts and figures alone cannot
solve the problem – values, morals, and ethics must also be incorporated into
discussions and policy-making. Therefore, the question posed at the very beginning
of this thesis journey was how to make the connection between ethics and law and
ultimately how to infuse this into the climate change regime. The common belief that
religious traditions are ethical by nature with approximately 85% of the world’s
population relating to them in some form was the primary reason for focusing on
religious voice as a way to connect and infuse the regime with a desperately needed
ethical dimension. 8 The most valuable feature is the abundance of ethical
environmental principles that are now beginning to be translated and promulgated
much more widely and publicly than ever before. Perhaps even more importantly is
the realisation that religious traditions are prepared to unite in this global endeavour.
Patricia Marlette Black The New is Elsewhere: Women’s Leadership in Community-Profit Organisations Doctoral Thesis,
Queensland University of Technology, 1999, p 25.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
Adrian Villasenor Galarza “Holistic Worldview: Towards an Integral Understanding of the Personal and the Scientific” Ludis
Vitalis, vol XVI, num 30, 2008, pp 197-203.
6
Patricia Marlette Black, The New is Elsewhere: Women’s Leadership in Community-Profit Organisations,
Doctoral Thesis , Queensland University of Technology, 1999, p 25.
7
Ibid.
8
Although the author is not a religious person, she understands religion to be an organised body of persons adhering to a
particular set of beliefs and practices. The author is thus interested in how this major part of global civil society articulates itself
ethically (re climate change) through official activities of religious representatives.
2
2
1.3. Research area of study
The research area of study will focus predominantly on religious engagement in
global climate change policymaking and law. It will examine the potential for
religious voice to develop as a leading political moral authority within the climate
change arena by drawing on the values-based perspective of religion. It will also
focus on the proactive viewpoints of world faiths on climate change issues.
Systematic neglect of a religious contribution has blinded policymakers to the
importance of religious voice in the international arena. The reasons for neglect are
generally attributed to a strong secular bias that has prevailed in leading academic
institutions. It has been widely assumed that religion belongs in the private sphere.
It has likewise been assumed that with the modernisation of societies, religion as a
major factor in global politics has diminished in importance. The thesis argues that
these presumptions are erroneous. It challenges those dominant theories by
positing that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere. It has instead
become increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and contains a
veritable wealth of knowledge. Perhaps religions can even be seen as naturally
progressing toward a more enlightened position. Watling suggests religious
environmentalism is a growing phenomenon challenging modern secular
assumptions about nature and humanity and exploring/promoting religious ones.9
He contends religions see themselves as effective ways of evoking new
appreciations of nature and for inspiring environmentally friendly behaviour.10 The
result, he writes, “may be a field that in effect constitutes a new environmentally
based religious movement in which different traditions express diverse and/or
syncretized environmental views”. 11 Tucker and Grim likewise suggest that an
alliance of religion and ecology is emerging around the planet.12 They state that as
scholars and theologians begin to explore culturally diverse environmental ethics,
religions are starting to find their voices regarding the environment.13 For example,
the monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are developing
original eco-theologies and eco-justice practices regarding stewardship and care for
creation.14 Hinduism and Jainism in South Asia, and Buddhism in both Asia and the
West, have established projects of ecological restoration. 15 Indigenous peoples
from all over the world possess wisdom of knowing and engaging the natural
9
Tony Watling Ecological Imaginations in the World Religions: An Ethnographic Analysis (Continuum International Publishing
Group, New York, 2009).
10
Ibid.
11
Tony Watling “The Field of Religion and Ecology: Addressing the Environmental Crisis and Challenging Faiths” in Religion:
Beyond a Concept H de Vries (ed) (Fordham Press, New York, 2008).
12
Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim “The Greening of the World’s Religions” The Chronical Review, Feb 9, 2007.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
3
world.16 All of these religious traditions are active in seeking the language, symbols,
rituals, and ethics for encouraging protection of the environment.17 Tucker and Grim
perceive this as is a new moment for the world’s religions, with a vital role to play in
the development of a more comprehensive environmental ethics. 18 Environmental
concerns and the religious thought and action they elicit might, therefore, be
challenging concepts of religious identity and pressing for reassessment and
change. They may also be bestowing a new context in which religious traditions (or
individuals and groups within them) may interpret their beliefs, challenge dominant
views, and regain legitimacy and public relevance.19
The aim of the dissertation therefore, is to provide viable options for religious
voice to become an active ethical partner in climate change policymaking and law.
Although there are still many voices who would wholly reject religion’s right to a
place in the international arena, these do appear to be less prominent than those
who extol religion’s role and those who simply do not know what the role should be.
Although the United Nations has taken a step in the right direction by including
religious organisations in the Millennium Goals, still more needs to be done to
institutionalise and broaden links between the United Nations and religious
institutions. This dissertation thus proposes several options. The first option places
an ethical organisation (Ethical Panel for Climate Change (EPCC)) within the current
UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a
Secretariat administered through the COP. This civil society body would comprise
religious membership, in addition to other members of civil society with expertise in
global ethical concerns. The second option places a religious organisation directly
within the United Nations system either as a traditional NGO, affiliated with the
ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General Assembly or the Security
Council.
1.4. Research questions and intended contribution
Religion has unique features enabling it to accord with important ethical aims for
climate change policymaking that neither the international arena nor national
governments can fulfill adeptly. Given the importance of ethics in the climate change
setting, it is surprising how little attention religion, as a values-based entity, has
received in the legal literature. Academics and policymakers have tended to
overlook religious voice as a topic worthy of theoretical or empirical investigation.
16
Ibid.
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Tony Watling “The Field of Religion and Ecology: Addressing the Environmental Crisis and Challenging Faiths” in Religion:
Beyond a Concept H de Vries (ed) (Fordham Press, New York, 2008) p 474.
17
4
The aim of this dissertation is to fill that gap. Therefore, the primary research
question herein is:
Can religious voice improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change
regime and if so, how can this be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms?
In order to answer this question and address relevant theoretical considerations,
this exploratory study considers the following subsidiary question:
How is religion important for combating climate change?
By answering the above primary and subsidiary research questions, I aim to
contribute to current scholarship in three ways. First, I highlight the importance of
religion for the climate change arena as a source of political morality, a topic that
has been largely neglected by mainstream environmental law scholarship. Second,
I aim to dispel secularisation theories which suggest that religion does not belong in
the public sphere. Third, although the importance of an ethical dimension of climate
change has drawn extensive attention from academia in recent years, scholars and
policymakers have yet to realise a concrete role for civil society organisations. By
illustrating the potential role of religion within the international regime, this study
provides a new lens through which we can understand and improve upon the
climate change regime.
1.5. Research methodology
This research is largely characterized by its exploratory nature. It investigates the
evolution, development and effectiveness of climate change policymaking and law
in order to provide insights toward possible future ethical solutions utilising the
wisdom of the world’s religions. The research intersects with ethics, religion and law
and thus necessitates an interdisciplinary approach. This involves drawing
appropriate information from the respective disciplines of law, political sociology and
theology in order to redefine problems outside of normal climate change governance
boundaries and to seek solutions based on these new understandings.
This research is grounded in secularisation theory as the primary theoretical
framework. Empirical data is obtained from both primary and secondary sources.
1.5.1. Secularisation Theory
Secularisation theory originates from the seminal social thinkers of the nineteenth
century – Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl
Marx, and Sigmund Freud – who all believed that religion would gradually fade in
5
importance and cease to be significant with the advent of industrial society. 20 As C.
Wright Mills summarised this process: “Once the world was filled with the sacred –
in thought, practice, and institutional form. After the Reformation and the
Renaissance, the forces of modernisation swept across the globe and
secularisation, a corollary historical process, loosened the dominance of the sacred.
In due course, the sacred shall disappear altogether except, possibly, in the private
realm.”21 However, by the late 1980’s/early 1990’s sociologists began to reassess
secularisation theory. Events including the rise of the religious right in the United
States and the Iranian revolution had a profound influence that simply could not be
ignored. Similarly, it could not be ignored that people continued to be religious, and
religion continued to influence social institutions and behaviour. 22 Ironically, this
reassessment of the role of religion in society has resulted in an argument that is
nearly exactly opposite to the argument made by modernisation and secularisation
theory: modernisation, rather than causing religion’s demise, is responsible for its
resurgence.23 This means in practice it represents a complete reversal in the role
religion is believed to play in modern political society.
A significant part of this dissertation rests on this claim. It provides a powerful
lens for analysing the potential influence of religious environmental organisations in
contexts where governments and international agencies fail to provide the impetus
and ethical perspective required for effective climate change solutions.
1.5.2. Empirical data
The essential data in this research derives from differing primary and secondary
sources. All are publicly available. I have reviewed the existing climate change
literature with a focus on building an extensive timeline of climate change
policymaking and law. Legal databases have been utilised in my search for relevant
general environmental law and specific climate change law material. I have read a
broad range of books, book chapters, journal articles and intergovernmental papers
concerning the ethical implications of climate change and the religious initiatives
taking place in this field. Similarly, academic material pertaining to secularisation
theory and its related discussions has been collated. I have also browsed
information provided on the internet - including websites, electronic newspaper
20
For detailed discussion see Steve Bruce (ed) Religion and Modernisation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992) p 170-94;
Alan Aldridge Religion in the Contemporary World (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000) Chapter 4. See also Max Weber The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Scribner, New York, 1930; Max Weber Sociology of Religion (Beacon Press,
Boston, 1993 [1922]; Mathieu M W Lemmen Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion (UPT-Katernen 10, Heerlen, 1990).
21
C Wright Mills The Sociological Imagination (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1959) p 32-33.
22
Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 11-12.
23
Ibid 12.
6
articles, and organisation research papers pertaining specifically to the research
topic.
1.6. Thesis structure
Although the general theory of global anthropogenic climate change has been a part
of scientific research and debate since the end of the nineteenth century, it was
really only in the late 1980s that an international legal regime was formally
developed to address the issue. Chapter 2 will discuss this evolutionary process,
highlighting the policies created, and the reasons why the system remains
predominantly ineffective - with collective action by nation-states (with disparate
socio-economic and environmental circumstances) remaining largely unattainable.
Potentially irreversible damages or costs, long-planning horizons, regional
variations, time lags between cause and effect, scientific uncertainties inherent to
climate change, and geographical discrepancies between those who pollute and
those subject to climate impacts make collective action more challenging still. As
these issues are essentially about rights and responsibilities, fairness and equity –
engaging humanity to deal in a more ethical manner is imperative.
Chapter 3 discusses the ethical implications of climate change and particularly
focuses on why ethics is not yet seen as an important factor in international
policymaking. One explanation as to why ethical issues are not being more explicitly
analysed lies in the confusion as to what is meant by ‘ethics’ in a climate change
context. To act ethically means that in deciding what is the right or wrong thing to
do in a given situation, we go beyond self-interest and give consideration to the
consequences of our actions (or non-actions) for the well-being of others. From this
perspective, ethics is a personal matter and not central to international affairs.
However, when obligations are created for governments that require them to go
beyond consideration of self-interest alone in making decisions and to consider their
duties and responsibilities towards others; including people in other countries, future
generations of people, and even other species – then ethics is central to
international negotiations. Regrettably, the influence of the conventional paradigm
still reigns such that climate change negotiating positions of many industrialised
nations, and many of the powerful developing nations, are dominated by national
self-interest largely defined by standard measures of short-term economic costs and
benefits. The divergence between the influences in decision-making of ‘national
self-interest’ versus considering ‘responsibilities for others’ is perhaps the most
important ethical issue when considering the current state of international climate
change negotiations. While national self-interest is the overarching reason for
7
ignoring or downplaying ethical issues, there are several other closely related
explanations why ethics is not upheld as a key player in climate change discussions.
These reasons include the disclaimers of economic harm, lack of scientific certainty,
lack of global consensuses, and the wait for better technologies.
Chapter 4 introduces religion as a foundation for ethical discourse on climate
change. After providing a notional definition of religion for the purposes of the
dissertation, attributes that bestow religion as a source of (ethical) political morality
for combating climate change are explored. Religion has a vast array of constructive
qualities that signify its importance. Religion’s most important aspect is the sheer
number of followers, with approximately 85 per cent of the world’s population
adhering to one or other of the world’s faiths and traditions. Unity of purpose,
sustainable practices, notions of justice and reverence for nature are other important
aspects – along with leadership roles taken by religious principals, story-telling as
an environmental awareness teaching tool, and the responsible handling of physical
and financial resources. Many of these attributes are employed by the World Council
of Churches and a brief case study of this particular organisation ensues.
The five major world religions (Christianity, Islamism, Judaism, Hinduism, and
Buddhism) and their respective perspectives on climate change are subsequently
discussed. Each of these religions (and many of the smaller, lesser known faiths) is
showing increased activism toward protection of the global environment. Several
prime examples of interreligious partnerships, imperative for unified action, are also
discussed in this chapter.
Systematic neglect of religious factors in law has blinded policymakers to the
importance of religious voice in the international arena. Chapter 5 thereby analyses
the nexus between religion and law. The reasons for neglect are generally attributed
to a strong secular bias that has prevailed in leading academic institutions. It has
been widely assumed that religion belongs in the private sphere. It has also been
assumed that with the modernisation of societies, religion as a major factor in global
politics has diminished in importance. Chapter 5 gives regard to secularisation
theory and its various concepts. It challenges those dominant theories by positing
that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere. It has instead become
increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and is a veritable source
of knowledge.
Chapter 6 continues with this line of thinking by exploring current religious
influence and relevance in international law, particularly at the UN. Although there
are still many voices who would wholly reject religion’s right to a place at the UN,
these do appear to be less prominent than those who extol religion’s role and those
who simply do not know what the role should be. Accordingly, the various actors
8
composing the UN system hold broadly varying views of religion and religious
actors. Chapter 6 also examines three valuable accounts regarding religion’s role in
the public sphere. (1) Religion Counts, composed in 2002 by an internationally
recognised group of scholars and experts, sought to broaden constructive religious
participation in the international arena by explaining how religion operates. The
paper analysed the relationship between religious and secular actors, and
highlighted ‘best practices’ among religious groups. The central aim was to
positively enhance religion’s voice in the public realm by providing valuable practical
information for religious groups and their secular partners in dialogue. (2) In 2008,
the Chicago Council on Global Affairs sponsored an independent Task Force on
Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy to advance understanding of the role
of religion in world affairs and to develop a framework to appropriately integrate
religion into U.S. foreign policy. The Executive Summary states that although
religion has been a major force in the daily lives of individuals and communities for
millennia, recent data indicates that the salience of religion is increasing the world
over. Once considered a “private” matter by Western policymakers, religion is now
playing an increasingly influential role – both positive and negative – in the public
sphere on many different levels. The report avers that although it is clear religious
actors will continue to present major challenges to security issues, there will also be
enormous opportunities to create new alliances and forge new paths. The United
States government will need to develop a far greater understanding of religion’s role
in politics and society around the globe, including a detailed knowledge of religious
communities, leaders, and trends. It must also move beyond traditional state-tostate relations to develop effective policies for engaging religious communities
within and across nations. (3) The World Bank has considered its relationship with
civil society, including faith institutions, as an important and long-standing area of
concern. The result of this consideration was the formation of the World Faiths
Development Dialogue (WFDD) in 1998. This small, autonomous institution
engages in dialogue and action on poverty, culture and diversity, services to the
poor, and equity. Established by James D. Wolfensohn, then President of the World
Bank, and Lord George Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, the purpose of the
organisation was to bridge the gap between the worlds of faith and secular
development. Wolfensohn particularly had increasingly recognised the limits of state
and government-centred development approaches. He had a sense that the
religious community and the Bank shared many interests but were continually at
loggerheads over numerous issues. This realisation inspired Wolfensohn to openly
engage and discuss issues of opposition.
9
Chapter 6 concludes with a brief discussion of the various obstacles facing
religious engagement in the UN, including: attitudes and biases over the potentially
divisive and political nature of faith-based groups; the ‘dangerousness’ of religion;
the idea that religion is defunct or not very relevant in the public sphere; and a
theologically-inferred perspective that faiths maintain over an evidence-based
practical perspective.
Chapter 7 draws the ethical, religious and legal components together by
proposing several options for a religious organisation at the United Nations. The first
option places an ethical organisation (Ethical Panel for Climate Change - EPCC)
within the current UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the
IPCC, with a Secretariat administered through the COP. This civil society body
would comprise religious membership, in addition to other members of civil society
with expertise in global ethical concerns. The second option places a religious
organisation directly within the United Nations system either as a traditional NGO,
affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General Assembly or
the Security Council. The key objective would be to transform the UN from the
traditional “diplomatic club” and arena of national governments’ transactions into an
inclusive international body representing different nations, ethnic, social and
professional groups with a direct influence on the decision-making process.
The final chapter summarises the dissertation. It considers the contributions that
my research makes to scholarship regarding the engagement of religion and its
interface between ethics, policy and law within the climate change arena. The
research objectives and the argument developed throughout the thesis are
discussed, along with the research outcomes. Finally recommendations for further
research are considered.
10
The Climate Change Regime and Options for Reform
“To a patient scientist, the unfolding greenhouse mystery is far more exciting than the plot
of the best mystery novel. But it is slow reading, with new clues sometimes not appearing
for several years. Impatience increases when one realizes that it is not the fate of some
fictional character, but of our planet and species, which hangs in the balance as the great
carbon mystery unfolds at a seemingly glacial pace.” 24
2.1. Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to provide the contextual background to the dissertation.
First, the chapter offers a brief summary of climate change science. Second, it
examines the evolution of the current climate change regime. Because of the
overlapping ecological, economic and social variables within which the current
regime is associated, the vast range of adaptation and mitigation methods applied
by myriad fragmented entities have become jumbled and mismatched and
governments have struggled to build a strong, integrated and comprehensive
regulatory system for managing climate change. Although some progress has been
made - such as international agreements, increased resources for scientific
research (leading to stronger evidence), some policy advances, a change in industry
rhetoric, and an increase in public awareness - it still falls far short of what is actually
required. The timeline of climate action tabled in section 2.3.1 offers a
comprehensive list of the advances and policies. It likewise illustrates the lethargy
and lack of momentum behind the initiatives. Third, the chapter discusses the
challenges climate change presents for existing governance mechanisms –
including matters such as societal reach, scientific uncertainty, distributional and
equity linkages, long time frames, and global implications. Fourth, it reflects briefly
on the prevalent options for reform, noting that these options may still suffer the
same inherent flaws of the current regime. Although the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol have performed
key roles in driving and guiding the development of climate change law, the real
challenge lies in the realisation that it is not simply about reforming the current statecentred regime – it is imperative that ethics performs a much larger role. The chapter
concludes by briefly introducing the central argument of the dissertation – utilising
religion as a means to bring ethics squarely into the international climate change
arena.
24
David W Schindler “The Mysterious Missing Sink” (1999) Nature 398: 105-106.
11
2.2. Brief history of climate change science
It was John Tyndall, in 1859, who first proposed that greenhouse gases, and
especially carbon dioxide, played a role in regulating the temperature of the earth. 25
In 1938, G S Callendar maintained that fossil fuel burning was raising atmospheric
carbon dioxide and that this had warmed the planet by one degree Fahrenheit. 26
And from a dataset commenced in the 1950’s at the Mauna Loa observatory in
Hawaii, Charles Keeling demonstrated that atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil
fuels was indeed rising.27 Data from thousands of weather stations and satellites
have since indicated that the planet has warmed by an average of 0.8 degrees
Celsius since the industrial revolution, and that rate of warming has increased since
the 1950’s with the rapid growth in carbon dioxide pollution. 28 The overwhelming
body of scientific evidence demonstrates unequivocally that the earth is warming. 29
Climate change is occurring, caused in large part by human activity. The impacts
are beginning to be experienced and these damaging effects will only increase in
the decades ahead. 30 Greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and
other human activities are the primary cause. Due largely to the combustion of fossil
fuels, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (the principal human-produced
greenhouse gas) are at a level unequalled for at least 800,000 years 31 . The
greenhouse gases from human activities are trapping more of the sun’s heat in the
earth’s atmosphere, resulting in warming (refer Figure 1 below). Over the last
century, the global average temperatures rose by almost 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit
and the Arctic warmed about twice as much. The oceans have also warmed,
especially within 1,000 feet of the surface.32
25
S. R. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008).
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and
since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have
increased. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,
Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf.
30
Climate Change 101 Overview Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available online at <http://www.pewclimate.org/climatechange-101/overview>.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
26
12
Figure 1: The Greenhouse Effect33
Although carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have always been present in
the atmosphere, emissions of these gases from human activity have increased
steadily since the industrial revolution, thus trapping more heat and amplifying the
greenhouse effect. 34 Avoiding more severe impacts in the future requires large
reductions in human-induced greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades.
Accordingly, many governments have committed to reduce their countries’
emissions by between fifty and eighty-five per cent below 2000 levels by 2050.35
While committing to and achieving such reductions must be a high priority, adapting
to climate change that is now unavoidable is also important. Carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades to many
centuries after they are emitted. Thus today’s emissions will affect the climate far
into the future. As a result, the Earth is committed to additional warming no matter
what actions are taken to reduce emissions now. With global emissions on the rise,
adaptation efforts are necessary to reduce the cost and severity of climate change
impacts for the next several decades. 36 Recent scientific research has also
concluded that many aspects of climate change are happening earlier or more
rapidly than climate models and experts initially predicted. The rate of change
33
Source: UNEP GRID Arendal: Environmental Knowledge for Change. Available online at
www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2684.aspx.
34
Climate Change 101 Overview Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available online at http://www.pewclimate.org/climatechange-101/overview.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
13
projected for global surface temperatures and related impacts, such as ice melt and
sea level rise is unprecedented in human history. Adapting to climate change will
become much more difficult and more expensive as changes happen faster or on a
larger scale than expected.37
2.3. Evolution of the climate change regime
Although environmental issues had been recognised much earlier, it was not until
the 1960’s that the idea developed that the more than seventy per cent of the
biosphere lying outside national boundaries – the oceans, the polar regions, the
atmosphere, outer space – were not res nullius, to be abused at will, but rather res
communis, a ‘commons’ of mankind requiring protection.
38
The effects of
unrestrained industrialisation was clearly obvious across the United States and
Europe in burning rivers, dying lakes, dead forests, and toxic chemicals that were
being ingested by animals and humans. 39 Many people consider 1962 as the
seminal year in which people began to understand how closely linked the
environment and development truly are. 40 It was during this year that Rachel Carson
published “Silent Spring,” which exposed the hazards of the pesticide DDT, and
questioned humanity’s faith in technological progress. 41 Appearing on a CBS
documentary about Silent Spring just months before her death she remarked,
“Man’s attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we have
now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is a part of nature,
and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself. We are challenged
as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our
mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves.” 42 In publishing her book, Carson, the
citizen-scientist, had generated an environmental revolution.
In 1967, the first ever action brought against environmental degradation that
didn't involve the allegation of personal damages was the landmark lawsuit
Yannacone vs. Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission. 43 This led to the
formation of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The case was tried in
the Supreme Court of New York in 1966.44 Carol A. Yannacone, the plaintiff, sued
individually and on behalf of the citizens of Suffolk County to stop the commission
from using DDT for mosquito control.45
37
Ibid.
Mark Allan Gray “The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment” 20 Environmental Law (1990) 292.
Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning From UNEP’s History” Available online at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf.
40
Sustainable Development Timeline at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf.
41
Rachel Carson Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, 1962).
42
CBS Reports: Season 4, Episode 14 “The Silent Spring of Rachel Carson (3 April 1963).
43
http://yannalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/DDT_Suffolk_Briefs.pdf.
44
Sustainable Development Timeline at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf.
45
Ibid.
38
39
14
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published Population Bomb on the connection between
human population, resource exploitation and the environment. 46 And in 1969,
Friends of the Earth formed as a non-profit advocacy organisation dedicated to
protecting the planet from environmental degradation; preserving biological,
cultural, and ethnic diversity; and empowering citizens to have an influential voice
in decisions affecting the quality of their environment and their lives.47 The early
years of the 1970’s consequently became the starting point for more serious
environmental action. The twenty years from 1970 to 1990 can perhaps be
perceived as ‘build-up’ years to the major policies, conventions and collaborations
that have resulted since. The following timeline provides a chronological overview
of the international response to climate change and the evolution of the United
Nations policy. It has been divided into two specific eras – 1970 to 1990 and 1991
to the present time – beginning with the “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC)
conference - to the period leading up to and including the Conference of the Parties
in Warsaw, Poland in 2013.
2.3.1. Timeline of climate change action
TIMELINE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION
YEAR
CONCLUSIONS AND
PRINCIPAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACTION
1970 – 1990
SMIC Conference
1971
1972
1972
46
47
Leading scientists report a
danger of rapid and serious
global change caused by
humans and call for an
organised research effort.
“Study of Man’s
Impact on
Climate”
UN’s first major conference on
international environmental
issues. It marked a turning point
in the development of
international environmental
politics.
United Nations
Conference on
the Human
Environment in
Stockholm,
Sweden
Laid foundations of
contemporary environmental
policy. The declaration defined
principles for the preservation
and enhancement of the natural
environment and highlighted the
Stockholm
Declaration and
Action Plan
Ibid. See also Paul R Ehrlich “The Population Bomb” (Buccaneer Books, New York, 1968).
Ibid.
15
need to support people in this
process.
One of the decisions outlined in
the Declaration was the
formation of the UN
Environment Programme
(UNEP).
1979
Climate change identified as an
urgent world problem. A
declaration was issued calling
on the world’s governments “to
foresee and prevent potential
man-made changes in climate
that might be adverse to the
well-being of humanity”.
First World
Climate
Conference in
Geneva,
Switzerland
This led to the establishment of
the World Climate Programme
(WCP) and the World Climate
Research Programme. It also
led to the creation of the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) – see
below.
World Climate
Programme
(WCP)
established
Joint responsibility of the World
Meteorological Organization
(WMO), the United Nations
Environment Programme
(UNEP), and the International
Council of Scientific Unions
(ICSU).
UN set up the
World
Commission on
Environment and
Development
Led by Gro Harlem Brundtland
of Norway, the Commission put
forward the concept of
sustainable development as an
alternative approach to one
simply based on economic
growth – one: “which meets the
needs of the present without
compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their
own needs” (1987 Brundtland
Report).
1985
Villach
Conference
Declared consensus among
experts that some global
warming appeared inevitable,
and called on governments to
consider international
agreements to restrict
emissions.
1988
Establishment of
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)
1979
1983
Panel given mandate to assess
the state of existing knowledge
about the climate system and
climate change; the
environmental, economic, and
social impacts of climate
16
change; and the possible
response strategies.
News media coverage of global
warming leaps upward following
record heat and droughts and
Hansen gives his testimony.
1990
Scientists and technology
experts issued a strong
statement highlighting the risk of
climate change. Eventually led
to establishment of the United
Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCC).
Second World
Climate
Conference in
Geneva,
Switzerland
IPCC’s First
Report
Report confirmed scientific
evidence for climate change.
1991 – Present Time
1992
1994
1995
Largest ever gathering of Heads
of State. UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change,
Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the
Convention on Biological
Diversity, and Forest Principles
agreements signed at the
Summit.
United Nations
Conference on
Environment and
Development
(UNCED) in Rio
de Janeiro (Earth
Summit)
The parties to the convention
have met annually since 1995 in
Conferences of the Parties
(COP’s) to assess progress in
dealing with climate change.
United Nations
Framework
Convention on
Climate Change
(UNFCCC)
Entered force on 21st March,
1994.
IPCC’s Second
Report
Written and reviewed by some
2,000 scientists and experts
world-wide. Became widely
known for concluding, “the
balance of evidence suggests
that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate.”
Recognized that the voluntary
commitment of the industrialised
countries laid down in the
Convention does not suffice to
guarantee effective climate
protection. Therefore a Protocol
was to be adopted, stating the
COP 1
1995
Berlin, Germany
17
specific GHG emission reduction
of these countries.
COP 2
1996
The countries agreed that this
Protocol should set legally
binding targets for reducing or
limiting GHG emissions
Geneva,
Switzerland
COP 3
After extensive negotiations, the
Kyoto Protocol was adopted.
1997
Kyoto, Japan
1997
Set binding targets for 37
industrialised countries and the
European community for
reducing GHG emissions.
Signing of Kyoto
Protocol
It had been expected that the
remaining unresolved issues in
Kyoto would be finalised.
Instead the parties adopted a 2year “Plan of Action” to advance
efforts and to devise
mechanisms for implementing
the Kyoto Protocol, to be
completed in 2000.
COP 4
1998
Buenos Aires,
Argentina
During COP 4, Argentina and
Kazakhstan expressed their
commitment to take on the
greenhouse gas emissions
reduction obligation, the first two
non-Annex countries to do so.
COP 5
Primarily a technical meeting,
and did not reach major
conclusions.
1999
Bonn, Germany
Major controversies, especially
over the US’ proposal to allow
credit for carbon “sinks” in
forests and agricultural lands;
disagreements over
consequences for noncompliance; how to obtain
financial assistance for
developing countries – led to
collapse of talks.
COP 6
2000
Part 1
The Hague,
Netherlands
Negotiations resumed (without
participation of the United States
as it had, under the leadership
of George Bush, rejected the
Protocol in March). Agreement
was reached concerning (1)
flexible mechanisms; (2) carbon
sinks; (3) broad outlines on
consequences for non-
COP 6
2001
Part 2
Bonn, Germany
18
compliance; (4) financing –
three new funds set up to: (i)
provide assistance for
supporting climate measures; (ii)
support least-developed
countries adaptation; and (iii) a
Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund.
2001
Report concluded evidence for
humanity’s influence on global
climate stronger than ever
before, and presented detailed
picture of how global warming
will affect various regions.
IPCC’s Third
Report
Set the stage to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol – still without
participation of the United
States. Completed package
known as Marrakesh Accords.
COP 7
2001
Marrakesh,
Morocco
Adopted the Delhi Ministerial
Declaration that among others,
called for efforts by developed
countries to transfer technology
and minimize the impact of
climate change on developing
countries.
COP 8
2002
New Delhi, India
Parties agreed to use the
Adaptation Fund established at
COP 7 primarily in supporting
developing countries better
adapt to climate change.
COP 9
2003
Milan, Italy
Discussed the progress made in
past 10 years since meetings
began and future challenges,
with special emphasis on
climate change mitigation and
adaptation. Buenos Aires Plan
of Action was adopted to further
support adaptation by
developing countries.
COP 10
2004
Buenos Aires,
Argentina
Marked the entry into force of
the Kyoto Protocol – and one of
the largest intergovernmental
conferences on climate change
ever. The Montreal Action Plan
agreed to “extend the life of the
Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012
and negotiate deeper cuts in
greenhouse-gas emissions.”
COP 11
2005
Montreal, Canada
2005
Kyoto treaty goes into effect,
signed by major industrial
nations with the exception of the
United States.
Ratification of the
Kyoto Protocol
19
Adopted a five-year plan of work
to support climate change
adaptation by developing
countries, and agreed on the
procedures and modalities for
the adaptation Fund. Agreement
reached to improve projects for
clean development mechanism.
COP 12
2006
Nairobi, Kenya
2007
Report concluded warming of
the climate system is
unequivocal and most of
observed increase in global
average temperatures since
mid-20th century very likely (90%
likelihood) due to observed
increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations.
The cost of reducing emissions
would be far less than the
damage they will cause.
IPCC’s Fourth
Report
Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets and Arctic Ocean sea-ice
cover found to be shrinking
faster than expected.
Adoption of Bali Action Plan –
timeline and structured
negotiation on the post-2012
framework. The AD Hoc
Working Group on Long-term
Cooperative Action under the
Convention (AWG-LCA)
established as subsidiary body
to conduct negotiations aimed at
urgently enhancing
implementation of the
Convention up to and beyond
2012.
COP 13
2007
Bali, Indonesia
Agreement on principles for the
financing of a fund to help the
poorest nations cope with the
effects of climate change.
Approval of a mechanism to
incorporate forest protection into
the efforts of the international
community to combat climate
change.
COP 14
2008
Poznan, Poland
2009
The goal was to create a global
framework to link scientific
advances in climate predictions
and the needs of their users for
decision-making to better cope
with changing conditions.
Third World
Climate
Conference in
Geneva,
Switzerland
20
2009
Produced the Copenhagen
Accord which recognised that
climate change is one of the
greatest challenges of the
present day and that actions
should be taken to keep any
temperature increases to below
2° C. However, the document is
not legally binding and does not
contain any legally binding
commitments for reducing CO2
emissions.
United Nations
Climate Change
Conference in
Copenhagen,
Switzerland
(Copenhagen
Summit)
Disappointing conference that
did not achieve binding
agreement on an extension of
the Kyoto Protocol or for longterm action. The 3 page
Copenhagen Accord was
negotiated but it was only
‘noted’ by the COP as it is
considered an external
document, not negotiated within
the UNFCCC process. It
referred to a collective
commitment by developed
countries for new and additional
resources, including forestry and
investment through international
institutions that will approach
USD 30 billion for the period
2010 – 2012.
COP 15
2009
Copenhagen,
Denmark
An agreement was reached (not
a binding treaty), aimed to limit
global warming to less than 2
degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. It called on rich
countries to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions as
pledged in the Copenhagen
Accord and for developing
countries to plan to reduce their
emissions. The agreement
includes a “Green Climate” fund,
proposed to be worth USD 100
billion a year by 2020, to assist
poorer countries finance
emission reductions and
adaptation. However, no
agreement was reached on how
the funds will be raised, or on
how to extend the Kyoto
Protocol.
COP 16
2010
Cancun, Mexico
In the second largest meeting of
its kind, the negotiations
advanced the implementation of
the Convention and the Kyoto
Protocol, the Bali Action Plan,
and the Cancun Agreements.
The outcomes included a
decision by Parties to adopt a
universal legal agreement on
COP 17
2011
Durban, South
Africa
21
climate change as soon as
possible, and no later than
2015. Disappointingly, however,
the day after the talks ended,
Canada withdrew from the
Kyoto Protocol.
2012
The United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development
resulted in a political outcome
document ‘The Future We Want’
which contains practical
measures for implementing
sustainable development.
However, the document appears
to do little more than endorse
ongoing efforts in the UN
system without expressing
commitment to developing a
new green economy, or setting
any binding timetables or
commitments.
UN Conference
on Sustainable
Development in
Rio de Janeiro
(Rio +20 Earth
Summit)
The UN Climate Change
Conference in Doha resulted in
agreement to a second
commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol from 2013 to 2020.
However, at present, this only
covers Europe and Australia,
which produces less than 15 per
cent of the world’s greenhouse
gas emissions. While there was
commitment, in principle, from
developed nations to
compensate developing nations
for the impacts of climate
change, only modest progress
was made on the ambition of
forging, by 2015, a new post
2020 global climate deal.
COP 18
2012
Doha, Qatar
The United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Warsaw
concluded with delegates
reaching a compromise on how
to fight global warming. After 30
hours of deadlock, they
approved a way out for a new
global climate treaty to be
signed in Paris in 2015. It will
replace the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol. Negotiators agreed
that all countries should work to
curb emissions from burning
coal, oil and gas as soon as
possible and ideally by the first
quarter of 2015.
COP 19
2013
Warsaw, Poland
Key decisions adopted include
further advancing the Durban
Platform, the Green Climate
Fund and Long-Term Finance,
the Warsaw Framework for
REDD Plus, and the Warsaw
International Mechanism for
Loss and Damage.
Source: Author’s elaboration
22
2.3.2. International climate change action – (1970-1990 era)
In 1971 a comprehensive gathering of experts from fourteen nations met in
Stockholm to focus specifically on climate change – a “Study of Man’s Impact on
Climate” (SMIC). Although there was much debate regarding whether greenhouse
gases were warming the earth, or whether pollution from particles was cooling it –
all experts agreed in issuing a report with stern warnings about the risk of severe
climate change. 48 The SMIC meeting was preparatory for a pioneering United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment that was to be held in 1972, again
in Stockholm and the SMIC Report was required reading for the delegates.49
The Stockholm conference became the first major conference on international
environmental issues, and for the first time, environmental issues commanded
attention at a high level of international governance.50 Although intended to be a
technical and scientific meeting, the conference expanded in the planning process
to also cover broad policy issues. Delegates from 113 states and over 400
international agencies met to discuss a vast range of topics: protection of wildlife,
marine life, and arid areas; conservation of resources and energy; human
settlements, health and population; preservation of archaeological treasures;
monitoring world environmental changes; natural disasters; the atmosphere; inland
waters; bio-productive systems; and trade and industry. 51 However, developing
countries’ participation in the proceedings did not come easily. Having gained
political independence only in the 1960s, much of these countries’ concerns in the
early 1970s focused on developing their economies as a way of ensuring
independence and political sovereignty. 52 The governments of many developing
countries, therefore, viewed environmental initiatives from the North as preventing
them from industrializing. 53 Thus environmental concerns translated into the
imposition of stringent standards and the institution of non-tariff barriers jeopardizing
their export possibilities.54 Environmental regulations were expected to negatively
influence the patterns of world trade, the international distribution of industry, the
comparative costs of production, and thus the competitive position of developing
countries.55 “Environmental concerns,” it was argued, “were a neat excuse for the
industrialized nations to pull the ladder up behind them.”56 Some of these concerns
48
Fred S Singer Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970).
Ibid.
50
Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf.
51
Mark Allan Gray “The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment” 20 Environmental Law (1990) 293.
52
Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid, quoting Wade Rowland The Plot to Save the World: the Life and Times of the Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment (Clarke, Irwin & Co, Toronto, 1973) 47.
49
23
could be mitigated, however, when many of the developing countries became
involved in the drafting of “The Founex Report”57 which elucidated the links between
environment and development, and put to rest the idea that these concepts were
entirely conflicting.58 It helped to convince developing countries that environmental
concerns were both more widespread and more relevant to their situation than they
had realised. Additionally, the report affirmed that the environment should not be
viewed as a barrier to development but as part of the process.59
The Stockholm Conference also developed the Stockholm Declaration and
Action Plan. The Declaration defined 26 principles for the preservation and
enhancement of the natural environment, and highlighted the need to support
people in this process.60 The Action Plan contained 109 recommendations to be
implemented by a first-ever international environmental management body (the
General Assembly later established this management body as the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
Even though taken for granted today, UNEP’s creation was less than certain in
the 1970’s.61 In his proposal to the General Assembly to hold a conference on the
human environment, Sweden’s ambassador to the United Nations stated, “no new
institutional arrangements would result from the conference”.
62
It became
increasingly clear as the preparatory process progressed that an institutional
arrangement would be necessary to put the agreements into effect and to facilitate
international cooperation.
63
Governments thus agreed to create a new
governmental body and, following the conference, in the fall of 1972, delegates from
around the world met at the UN General Assembly in New York. The delegates
discussed, among other things, the institutional and financial framework for the
environment. 64 UNEP was thus created as the “anchor institution” for the global
environment. It was to serve as the world’s ecological conscience, to provide
impartial monitoring and assessment. It also served as a global source of
information on the environment, to “speed up international action on urgent
environmental problems,” and to “stimulate further international agreements of a
regulatory character.” 65 Most importantly, the mission of UNEP was to ensure
coherent collective environmental efforts by providing central leadership, assuring
57
The Founex Report was the result of a meeting of a panel of scientists and development experts from developing countries in
Founex, Switzerland in June 1971.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Available online at
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503&l=en.
61
Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
24
a comprehensive and integrated overview of environmental problems and
developing
stronger
linkages
among
environmental
institutions
and
the
constituencies they serve.66
Since its inception UNEP has operated as the United Nations’ principal body for
environmental affairs. Over the years, however, international environmental
responsibilities have spread across multiple organisations, including UNEP and
close to a dozen other United Nations bodies (such as the Commission for
Sustainable Development, the World Meteorological Organisation, the Food and
Agriculture Organisation, and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO).67 Additional to this are the independent secretariats and
governing bodies of the numerous environmental conventions. Some state the
result of this has been a series of jurisdictional overlaps, gaps and “treaty
congestion” leading to unproductive duplication, competition and waste of scarce
resources.68 With such a proliferation of international environmental law developed
since 1972 and environmental ministries established in almost every country, some
analysts contend that UNEP needs to move into a more operational, or
implementing role.69 Others, however, claim that its comparative advantage lies in
the normative field and that operational activities should be performed by the
sectorally focused specialised agencies.70 Yet despite international efforts over the
last several decades, horizontal and trans-sectoral linkages among the specialized
agencies are still lacking, and environmental activities still amount to little more than
rhetoric and competition for additional resources.
71
The new patterns of
organisation that the founders of the system envisioned, “based on a multitude of
centres of information and of energy and power, and linked together within a system
in which they can interact with each other” have yet to be created.72
The first World Climate Conference (WCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1979
provided a major international forum devoted exclusively to climate change and led
to the creation of the World Climate Programme (WCP) and to the creation of the
66
Ibid.
Frank Biermann, Bernd Siebenhuner and Anna Schreyogg (eds) International Organizations in Global Environmental
Governance (Routledge, Oxon, 2009) 153.
68
Ibid.
69
Adnan Amin, "UNEP - Reform Perspectives Two Years after Johannesburg," and Klaus Töpfer, "A Strengthened International
Environmental Institution," in UNEO - Towards an International Environmental Organization, ed. A. Rechkemmer. (Baden-Baden:
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005).
70
Mohamed El-Ashry, "Mainstreaming the Environment--Coherence Among International Governance Systems," Paper read at
the International Environmental Governance Conference, Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations,
Paris, 2004; James G. Speth, "A Memorandum in Favor of a World Environment Organization," in UNEO - Towards an
International Environment Organization, ed. A. Rechkemmer, (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005); and James G
Speth and Peter M. Haas, Global Environmental Governance, (Island Press, Washington DC, 2006).
71
Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf.
72
Wade Rowland, The Plot to Save the World: The Life and Times of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
(Clarke, Irwin & Co, Toronto, 1973) 33.
67
25
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).73 Several hundred scientists
and dignitaries attended the conference and during the course of the meeting a
statement was drafted and accepted. One of its most significant points was as
follows:
It is possible that some effects on a regional and global scale may be detectable before the
end of this century and become significant before the middle of the next century. This time
scale is similar to that required to redirect, if necessary, the operation of many aspects of
the world economy, including agriculture and the production of energy. Since changes in
climate may prove to be beneficial in some parts of the world and adverse in others,
significant social and technological readjustments may be required.74
The statement went on to call on all nations to unite in efforts to understand climate
change and to plan for it. Although it did not make any calls for policy action, it did
lay the groundwork for a series of workshops to better understand the problem.75
The workshops were held in Villach, Austria in 1980, 1983 and 1985. It was during
the 1985 session that an international group of scientists (participating in their
personal capacities) reached consensus that ‘in the first half of the next century a
rise of global mean temperature would occur which is far greater than any in man’s
history’. 76 The scientists recommended that ‘scientists and policy-makers should
begin active collaboration to explore the effectiveness of alternative policies and
adjustment.’77
The concept of sustainable development as an alternative approach to one
simply based on economic growth, “which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” was put
forward by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in
1983.78 Led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway at that time, its
work was based on the need for all people everywhere to join hands in an effort to
protect the global environment. The mission of the WCED was to re-examine the
critical issues of environment and development, and formulate innovative, concrete
and realistic action proposals to deal with them. A second goal was to strengthen
international cooperation on the environment and development, to assess and
propose new forms of cooperation that can break out of existing patterns, and
influence policies and events in the direction of needed change. Finally, the
commission aimed to raise the level of understanding and commitment to action on
Shardul Agrawala “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39:
605-620.
74
William W Kellogg “Mankind’s Impact on Climate: The Evolution of an Awareness” Climatic Change 10 (1987) 123.
75
Jill Jager “From Conference to Conference” Climatic Change (1992) Vol 20, No 2, iii-vii.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987).
73
26
the part of individuals, voluntary organisations, business, institutes and
governments.79
The Commission’s report Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report),
published in 1987 indicated that the attainment of sustainable development must
deal with the interrelationship between the global environment and development in
a very comprehensive manner. It provided support for expanding the role of
sustainable development, proposed a United Nations programme on sustainable
development, and identified the central legal and institutional issues.80
Until recently, the planet was a large world in which human activities and the effects were
neatly compartmentalized within nations, within sectors (energy, agriculture, trade) and
within broad areas of concern (environmental, economic, and social). These compartments
have begun to dissolve. This applies in particular to the global ‘crises’ that have seized public
concern, particularly over the last decade. These are not separate crises: an environmental
crisis, a development crisis, an energy crisis. They are all one.81
On policy matters the Commission focused attention on population, food
security, the loss of species and genetic resources, energy, industry and human
settlements, recognizing that all are connected and thus cannot be treated in
isolation from each other.82 On international cooperation and institutional reform the
focus included the role of the international economy; managing global commons;
the relationship between peace, security, development and the environment; and
institutional and legal change. 83 The Report made recommendations concerning
each of the matters that identify challenges for the development of international law,
including the impact of national sovereignty and the management of the ‘global
commons’. It identified six priority areas for legal and institutional change:
(1) It called upon governments, regional organisations and international bodies and
agencies to support development which would be economically and ecologically
sustainable, to integrate the environment fully into their goals and activities, and to
improve coordination and cooperation.
(2) It sought reinforcement of the roles and capacities of environmental protection
and resource management agencies to deal with effects, including a strengthened
UNEP as the principal source for environmental data, assessment and reporting
and the principle advocate and agent for change and international cooperation.
Sven-Olof Ryding Environmental Management Handbook: The Holistic Approach – From Problems to Strategies (IOS Press,
Amsterdam, 1998) 28.
80
Philippe Sands Principles of International Environmental La: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation (Manchester
University Press, Manchester, 1995) 45.
81
Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987).
82
Philippe Sands Principles of International Environmental La: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation (Manchester
University Press, Manchester, 1995) 46.
83
Ibid.
79
27
(3) It called for an extension of the capacity of the international community to
identify, assess and report on global risks of irreversible environmental damage,
including a new international programme for cooperation among non-governmental
organisations, scientific bodies and industry groups.
(4) It recognised the need to expand the rights, roles and participation in
development planning, decision-making and project implementation of informed
public, non-governmental organisations, the scientific community, and industry.
(5) In recognizing that ‘international law is being rapidly out-distanced by the
accelerating pace and expanding scale of impacts on the ecological basis of
development’, it called on governments to fill gaps in national and international law
related to the environment in order to find ways to recognise and protect the rights
of present and future generations to an environment adequate for their health and
well-being; to prepare under UN auspices a universal declaration on environmental
protection and sustainable development and a subsequent Convention, and to
strengthen procedures for avoiding or resolving disputes on environment and
resource management issues.
(6) It recognised the need to invest in pollution control by providing financial
assistance through the World Bank, IMF and other regional development banks. It
also called for a United Nations Programme on Sustainable Development and an
international conference to review progress and to promote follow up
arrangements.84
Each of these proposals received support from governments at UNCED, and a
conclusion from the report stated: “Attempts to maintain social and ecological
stability through old approaches to development and environmental protection will
increase instability. Security must be sought through change...We are unanimous
in our conviction that the security, well-being, and very survival of the planet depend
on such changes, now.”85
In November 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
officially constituted during its first meeting in Geneva. Initiated by the World
Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), this amalgamated body of scientists produces peer-reviewed
literature relevant to climate change and provides the policy community with
syntheses of prevailing knowledge.86 It is open to all member countries of the United
Nations and WMO. There are currently 194 member countries whose governments
participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions
84
Ibid. Refer also Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987).
Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987).
86
Imran Habib Ahmad “Climate Policy Integration: Towards Operationalization” DESA Working Paper No. 73, March 2009 p4.
85
28
about the IPCC work programme are taken, and reports accepted, adopted and
approved.87
A pivotal point often overlooked is that the IPCC was the product of an intensely
political process within the US and the UN system.88 Its specific purpose was to
engage governments globally in climate change decision making. Thus, it is a
contradiction in terms that the IPCC has managed to attract and sustain the
participation of high caliber scientists and has consistently produced reports that
carry credibility in scientific circles. 89 Part of the answer lies in the diversity of
political actors (various US agencies, UNEP, WMO, and many different countries)
and the divergence in their respective interests. This may have led to a scenario in
which all actors had to give up control of the assessment process by nominating a
credible independent scientist to chair the IPCC, as well as through procedural rules
such as universal participation, and process transparency.
90
Bert Bolin’s
91
nomination as IPCC chair in 1988 gave credibility to the emerging assessment
process and probably induced other eminent scientists to participate.92 This may
have created a self-reinforcing mechanism - the more credible experts there were
already in the IPCC, the more attractive it was for other established experts to join,
the more internal strength the institution had to defend its scientific integrity against
political pressures.93 Agrawal states that “it is not entirely inconceivable that had a
single or more unified group of political actors been responsible for the creation of
the IPCC, or, if a bureaucrat or even a scientist of lesser stature been nominated as
chair, the assessment process might have been a non-starter or spiraled towards
lower and lower credibility”.94 In recent years, however, IPCC science has come
under attack. A number of mistakes in IPCC data (such as when the glaciers in the
Himalayas would have completely melted) and leaked out e-mail correspondence
between IPCC scientists were distorted by the press and internet media causing a
breach of confidence in IPCC science. IPCC scientists have tried to rectify this
image but the rumours have caused extensive damage even leading to questions
in national parliaments about the integrity of the scientific work.95
The Second World Climate Conference held in Geneva in 1990 was an important
step towards a global climate treaty and provided a unique blend of politics, science
87
Ibid.
Shardul Agrawala “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39:
605-620.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Bert Bolin (15 March 1925 – 30 December 2007) was a Swedish meteorologist who served as the first chairman of the IPCC
from 1988 to 1997. He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University from 1961 until his retirement in 1990.
92
Shardul Agrawala “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39:
605-620.
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
95
Joyeeta Gupta “A History of International Climate Change Policy” WIREs Climate Change 2010 1 636-653.
88
29
and unprecedented public attention. 96 The conference’s main objectives were to
review the UNEP/WMO World Climate Programme (WCP) and to recommend policy
actions. 97 The first part of the Conference, attended by 747 scientists and
technology experts from around the world, resulted in a scientific statement in which
it was agreed it was time for the world community to take strong measures to reduce
sources and to increase “sinks” of greenhouse gases, despite the remaining
scientific uncertainties. “If the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations is not
limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social
systems unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.” 98 The second part of the
Conference consisted of discussions among heads of governments and ministers
from 137 states and the European Community. A key issue was whether or not to
set emissions targets and to refer specifically to carbon dioxide. Although the final
declaration did not specify any internationally agreed targets, the participants did
agree on a number of points.99 These were that participants:
(1) recognise a number of principles that had emerged in international climate
discussions, including the concept of climate change as a common concern of
humankind, the principle of equity and the common but differentiated responsibility
of countries at different levels of development, the concept of sustainable
development, and the precautionary principle;
(2) stress the need for further scientific research on the causes and effects of climate
change and recommend that this be done mainly through support of the World
Climate Programme (WCP);
(3) state that response measures must be adopted without delay, despite remaining
uncertainties;
(4) urge developed states, which are responsible for 75% of the world’s emissions of
greenhouse gases, to “establish targets and/or feasible national programmes or
strategies which will have a significant effect on limiting emissions of greenhouse
gases …”;
(5) recognise that the emissions from developing countries must still grow to
accommodate their development needs; nevertheless, these states should, with
support from the developed nations and international organisations, take action; and
(6) call for elaboration of a framework treaty on climate change and the necessary
protocols – continuing real commitments and innovative solutions – in time for
96
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available online at
http://unfccc.int/resource/ccsites/senegal/fact/fs221.htm.
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid.
99
Ibid.
30
adoption by the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in
1992.100
2.3.3. International climate change action – (1991-present time)
1992 was the year acknowledged by many as the commencement of a global
movement to protect the environment (along with integrating developmental goals
into environmental considerations). The United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) - otherwise known as the Earth Summit - was held in
Rio de Janeiro and was unprecedented for a UN conference, both in its size and
the scope of its concerns.101 The Summit’s message was strong – stressing that
nothing less than a transformation of attitudes and behaviour would bring about the
necessary changes. The message reflected the complexity of the problems facing
humankind: that poverty as well as excessive consumption by affluent populations
place damaging stress on the environment.102 Governments recognised the need to
redirect international and national plans and policies to ensure that all economic
decisions fully took into account any environmental impact.103
The Summit was a significant leap forward for environmental policy making and
led to the adoption of three major agreements and two legally binding conventions
aimed at changing the traditional approach to development. The Statement of
Forest Principles, a non-binding set of principles underling the sustainable
management of forests worldwide was one of the major agreements. It provided
that all countries, notably developed countries, should make an effort to “green the
world” through reforestation and forest conservation. It also affirmed that states
have a right to develop forests according to their socio-economic needs, in keeping
with national sustainable development policies; and that specific financial resources
should be provided to develop programmes that encourage economic and social
substitution policies.104
The second major agreement was Agenda 21. It contained detailed proposals
for action in social and economic areas (such as combating poverty, changing
patterns of production and consumption and addressing demographic dynamics),
and for conserving and managing the natural resources that are the basis for life –
protecting the atmosphere, oceans and biodiversity; preventing deforestation; and
promoting sustainable agriculture. 105 Governments agreed that the integration of
environment and development concerns would lead to the fulfillment of basic needs;
100
Ibid.
The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid.
104
The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/envirp2.html.
105
Ibid.
101
31
improved standards for all; better protected and better managed ecosystems and a
safer and a more prosperous future. The Preamble stated: “No nation can achieve
this on its own. Together we can — in a global partnership for sustainable
development”.106 The programme of action also suggested ways to strengthen the
role played by major groups — women, children and young people, indigenous
peoples, farmers, trade unions, the scientific community, local authorities, business,
industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in achieving sustainable
development.107
The third major agreement was the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, which supported Agenda 21 by promoting a series of principles
defining the rights and responsibilities of states. The first principle proclaimed that
human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development, and are
entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Other principles in
the document proclaimed that scientific uncertainty should not delay measures to
prevent environmental degradation where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage. States also had a sovereign right to exploit their own resources but not to
cause damage to the environment of other states. The eradication of poverty and
reduction of disparities in worldwide standards of living were “indispensable” for
sustainable development. The full participation of women was seen as essential for
achieving sustainable development. The developed countries acknowledged their
responsibilities in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the
pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies
and financial resources they command.108 The Rio Declaration was greeted with
some disappointment however, as it did not meet the expectations raised by the
secretary-general of the conference, Maurice Strong, who had first called for
UNCED to produce an “Earth Charter.”109 Although Strong had not elaborated on
the contents he envisioned for the proposed Charter, the title alone evoked a
passionate debate from people inside and outside government circles. Many argued
that UNCED should produce an Earth Charter that would stir the hearts and minds
of people the world over, awaken them to the environmental perils and challenges
before them, and inspire them to join together to achieve a healthy planet. 110 Several
months before the Summit it became clear that no intergovernmental agreement
would be reached and the Earth Charter was removed from the Summit agenda.
However, the Charter was far from forgotten. The 1992 NGO Global Forum held in
106
Ibid.
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
109
Jeffrey D Kovar “A Short Guide to the Rio Declaration” 4 Colo J Intl Envtl L & Poly 119 (1993).
110
Ibid.
107
32
parallel to the Summit negotiated and drafted an Earth Charter that built on the work
done in preparations for the Summit. 111 In 1994, Maurice Strong and Mikhail
Gorbachev, president of Green Cross International, launched a new Earth Charter
Initiative with support from the Dutch government. An Earth Charter Commission
was formed in 1997 to oversee the project. Finally, after years of discussion and
drafting, the Earth Charter was launched in June 2000 (see Appendix F for full
document). The key influences which have aided in shaping the values in the Earth
Charter include contemporary science, international law, the wisdom of the world's
great religions and philosophical traditions, the declarations and reports of the seven
UN summit conferences held during the 1990s, the global ethics movement,
numerous nongovernmental declarations and people's treaties issued over the past
thirty years, and best practices for building sustainable communities. 112 It is a
people's treaty that sets forth an important expression of the hopes and aspirations
of the emerging global civil society.
In addition to the three major agreements, two legally binding Conventions were
opened for signature at the Earth Summit. The first of these was the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD)
113
which entered into force in 1993 with 3 main
objectives: the conservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of the
components of biological diversity; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The second legally binding
convention was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), which entered into force in 1994, after receiving the requisite fifty
ratifications.114 It set an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the
challenge posed by climate change. The Parties to the Convention acknowledged
that ‘change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of
humankind’; that human activities are ‘enhancing the natural greenhouse effect’;
that ‘the largest share of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries’; that
‘the global nature of climate change’ requires ‘cooperation by all countries’ in an
‘international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities’; and that countries have a ‘responsibility to ensure that activities
within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other
States’.115 The Convention expressed a determination ‘to protect the climate system
for present and future generations’ and to stabilize ‘greenhouse gas concentrations
111
Klaus Bosselmann and J Ronald Engel The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam,
2010) 18.
112
The Earth Charter Initiative website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/faq.html#4.
113
Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online at http://www.cbd.int/convention/about.shtml.
114
UNFCCC now has 165 signatories and 195 Parties (194 states and one regional economic integration organisation) and is
approaching universal membership. (Refer UNFCCC website).
115
M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International
Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 295.
33
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system’. In sum the UNFCCC made the claim that
industrial gases are changing the earth’s climate, and that a stable climate is a
universal common good whose preservation requires cooperative international
mitigating action.116
Linked to the UNFCCC is the Kyoto Protocol. It was adopted in Kyoto, Japan in
1997 and entered into force in 2005. The main difference between the Protocol and
the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to
stabilise greenhouse gas emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.117 The
detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in
Marrakesh in 2001 - the “Marrakesh Accords.”118 The Protocol was ratified by 184
parties to the UNFCCC, though not by the United States of America. 119 As the
majority of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions were emitted from industrialised
nations, the Protocol committed thirty-seven of them to mitigation actions,
mandating a per-country average of five per cent reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions in the first commitment period from 2008 through 2012.120 Although each
country has its own national target (E.U. countries, for example, have a -8% target,
Japan a -6% target, and Australia a +8% target), these national targets were defined
through a process of international negotiations rather than determined by each
country unilaterally, and are subject to detailed international accounting rules to
determine whether a country has complied.121 Rather than requiring states to adopt
particular policies and measures such as efficiency standards, the Kyoto emissions
targets give states freedom in deciding how to reduce emissions and (to a limited
degree) where and when to do so. It includes "flexibility mechanisms" such as
emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, which allow states to
reduce emissions wherever the reductions are cheapest. And its multi-year
commitment period and provision for banking of unused credits give states flexibility
about when they reduce emissions.122
The Kyoto Protocol was a considerable achievement, but it does have two
significant limitations. First, the states willing to accept Kyoto-style emissions targets
represent only about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.123 The United
116
Ibid.
Kyoto Protocol. Available online at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
118
Ibid
119
This is despite the fact that the United States has placed the largest share of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and
remains the largest emitter after China.
120
M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International
Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 296.
121
Daniel Bodansky “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series
Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
117
34
States, which accounts for roughly twenty-five per cent of global emissions, has
refused to join Kyoto, and the Kyoto Protocol – reflecting the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities – does not establish
any emissions limitation commitments for developing countries such as China,
which has now surpassed the United States as the world's biggest emitter. 124
Second, the Protocol originally set targets for only a five-year commitment period
running from 2008-2012. Although the Protocol was amended in 2012 to
accommodate a second commitment period (2013-2020), this amendment has not
yet entered into legal force.125
Many oppose the Kyoto Protocol not because its targets are ineffective but
because the principle of United Nations-set emissions targets undermines the
economic, and hence political, sovereignty of nation-states.126 This is a criticism
most often heard in the Senate of the United States, which voted ninety-nine to one
under Clinton-Gore against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and remains steadfast in
opposing any treaty restraining greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. 127
The Senate also opposed the Kyoto Protocol since it did not require developing
countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore it was said to
disadvantage American businesses and employers relative to developing
countries. 128 Even so, the Protocol has many supporters, especially in the
developing world, as was evident at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate conference,
since it is the only existing legal instrument for greenhouse gas emission
reductions. 129 The principle of internationally agreed greenhouse gas emission
reductions is seen as too important to give up given the complexities involved in
negotiating a new treaty.130
With so many difficulties surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, the December 2007
Bali conference set out negotiating a successor regime for the Protocol’s expiry in
2012. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pleaded with delegates to ‘‘deliver to the
people of the world a successful outcome’’. 131 The conference’s dramatic eleventh
hour included Papua New Guinea’s open challenge to the United States: ‘‘If you’re
124
Ibid.
The 37 parties with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, the European Union (and its 28 member
states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated
that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets. Japan, New
Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment
period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012)
and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).
126
M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International
Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 296.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid.
131
Ramesh Thakur and Thomas G Weiss “United Nations “Policy”: An Argument with Three Illustrations” International Studies
Perspectives (2009) 10 p 29. (Quoted in Jowit, Davies, and Adam 2007).
125
35
not willing to lead, get out of the way’’. 132 After the deadline for an agreement had
been reached, the 187 states present (including China and the United States)
unexpectedly resumed talks on the global effort to rescue the planet from climate
change, which concluded in the Bali roadmap. The roadmap encompassed all
aspects of the climate change issue: mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology.
Even though severe concessions were made so that the United States would sign
on, the United States still had serious concerns about the inadequacy of
responsibilities assigned to developing countries, while Russia, Canada, and Japan
also objected to some of the agreement’s key aspects. Meanwhile the G-77 and
some NGOs were disappointed at the jaded final text.133 Indeed, the ambassador of
Grenada described the outcome as ‘‘so watered-down’’ that ‘‘there was no need for
12,000 people to gather…in Bali. We could have done that by email’’. 134
The Copenhagen Conference of 2009 resulted in similar disappointment. It was
intended to update the Kyoto Protocol, including mandating more robust levels of
greenhouse gas reductions in developed countries and drawing developing
countries into the process so that growth in emissions would peak before 2020 and
then begin to decline.135 However fundamental disagreements over matters agreed
at previous Conferences of the Parties—the legitimacy of the Kyoto Protocol, the
definition of dangerous climate change as an average warming above two degrees
Celsius, the science of anthropogenic climate change, the efficacy of carbon
markets - prevented any comprehensive treaty being agreed in Copenhagen. 136
Thus, “Hopenhagen” became seen as “Nopenhagen” by many disillusioned
participants and commentators.137
Perhaps that was too harsh a criticism, as although the conference did not result
in a new legal agreement to extend, complement, or replace the Kyoto Protocol, it
did produce the Copenhagen Accord. This political agreement, negotiated by the
leaders of more than twenty-five countries in the closing hours of the meeting
addressed all of the main elements under negotiation, including mitigation,
adaptation, finance, technology, forestry, and verification. 138 The key elements
included setting a long-term aspirational goal of limiting temperature rise to no more
than two degrees Celsius; establishing a process for recording the mitigation targets
and actions of both developed and developing countries; placing significant new
132
Ibid. (quoted in Jowit et al. 2007).
Ibid 29.
Ibid.
135
M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International
Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313, 297.
136
Ibid.
137
Daniel Bodansky “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series
Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865.
138
Daniel Bodansky “The International Climate Change Regime: The Road from Copenhagen” Harvard Project on International
Climate Agreements October 2010. Available online at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/climate.
133
134
36
money on the table for climate change mitigation and adaptation by developing
countries, including “fast start” money for the 2010-2012 period “approaching” 30
billion United States dollars and a goal of mobilising 100 billion by 2020; and
providing for “international consultation and analysis” of developing country actions,
plus fuller monitoring, reporting and verification of actions that receive international
support as well as developed country targets and financing.139
The Copenhagen Accord has embraced a different architecture than the Kyoto
Protocol. Rather than defining emissions targets from the top down through
international negotiations, the Copenhagen Accord establishes a bottom-up
process that allows each party to define its own commitments and actions
unilaterally. 140 The Accord specifies that developed countries will put forward
national emissions targets in the 2020 timeframe, but allows each party to determine
its own target level, base year, and accounting rules. Meanwhile, developing
countries have even greater latitude in formulating nationally appropriate mitigation
actions (NAMAs).141
So what is the legal status of the Copenhagen Accord? On the one hand, it has
been adopted by the leaders of all of the world’s major economies, giving it
considerable weight. On the other hand, when it was brought back to the formal
conference of the parties, the conference could agree only to “take note” rather than
to adopt it, due to objections from a handful of countries led by Sudan, Venezuela
and Bolivia. As a result, the Accord had no official status within the UNFCCC
process.142
The Cancun Agreements of December 2010 not only brought the numerous
components of the Copenhagen Accord into the UNFCCC process, but elaborated
the Accord’s three-page text into thirty pages of decision language.143 Key elements
of the decisions included:

a reiteration of the long term goal of limiting temperature increase to two degrees
Celsius;

anchoring of the emissions targets and actions pledged pursuant to the
Copenhagen Accord in the UNFCCC process, through inclusion in two information
documents – one for emissions targets to be implemented by developed countries,
the other for NAMAs to be implemented by developing countries;

establishment of a registry for listing NAMAs for which developing countries are
seeking international support;
139
Ibid.
Daniel Bodansky “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series
Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
140
37

establishment of the Green Climate Fund, which will be managed by a twenty-four
member board of directors and administered for the first three years by the World
Bank;

reiteration of the collective commitment in Copenhagen by developed countries to
provide an amount approaching $30 billion in fast start financing for the 2010-2013
period, balanced between mitigation and adaptation, as well as of the longer-term
goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020, a “significant portion” of which
should flow through the newly-established Green Climate Fund;

elaboration of the process of international consultation and analysis of developing
country mitigation actions, including that it will be performed by the Subsidiary Body
on Implementation (SBI) of the UNFCCC;

establishment of a new technology mechanism to facilitate technology development
and transfer;

establishment of a framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation (REDD); and

adoption of the Cancun Adaptation Framework.144
Whether the conference was a step in the right direction or a failure is still
unclear. Those who viewed the results of COP16 with the ‘glass half full” basis
included the host of the gathering, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who said the
agreements reached at the conference “put Mexico and the whole world on the right
path to confront the threat of global warming and climate change.”145 The general
consensus among participants was that the talks were at least partially successful.
The evidence is that 193 of the 194 participants signed the final declaration from
the two weeks of talks, even though many still had reservations.146 Bolivia was the
only country that refused to sign the document. Another point of agreement among
participants was that there was a greater sense of optimism and commitment at the
Cancun gathering than there was at the conclusion of the talks in Copenhagen. 147
Observers said the talks could be considered a success because participants were
able to reach agreements on three difficult areas:
1. The US and China—-the two countries most responsible for greenhouse-gas
emissions endorsed international, transparent standards for countries to verify their
reductions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions.148
144
Ibid.
Carlos Navarro “Cancun Summit on Global Climate Change a Success or Failure, Depending on Whom You Ask” (Notien,
The University of New Mexico, January 2011) Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1928/11918.
146
Ibid.
147
Ibid.
148
Ibid.
145
38
2. Participants agreed on a plan for wealthy nations to establish a US$100 billion
green climate fund by 2020 for poorer countries to use to adapt to the effects of a
warming planet and to develop renewable-energy sources. Before the summit,
many countries had raised concerns that their needs were being ignored by
industrialized nations.149
3. Participants achieved a far-reaching agreement to reduce global deforestation,
another step in the effort to lower carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere.150
The conference also reaffirmed the goal set in Copenhagen of limiting global
warming by less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Critics,
however, argued that the industrialised nations did not make sufficient commitments
to reduce emissions, and, because of that, any agreements reached in Cancun were
hollow and ineffective.151 The starkest criticisms came from Bolivian President Evo
Morales, who expressed disapproval at the industrialised countries for their refusal
to make a binding commitment to reduce emissions.152 Morales and other critics
pointed out that the poorest nations produce the least emissions but would suffer
the most from the impact of flooding, drought, and other effects of the warming of
the global atmosphere. 153 Kumi Naidoo, executive director of the environmental
organisation Greenpeace stated that “COP16 saved the UN process but did not
save the planet.”154
Several key steps forward were agreed at the UN climate convention meeting
(COP 17), held in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, including an agreement
to negotiate a new and more inclusive treaty and the establishment of a Green
Climate Fund.155 Governments also agreed to establish an Adaptation Committee
and a process that will lead to the establishment of a Climate Technology Centre
and Network with likely funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
However, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive
Director, stated: “The movements forward on the Cancun agreements in respect to
adaptation and climate technology institutions are welcome, as is the
operationalisation of the Green Climate Fund. But the core question of whether
more than 190 nations can cooperate in order to peak and bring down emissions to
149
Ibid.
Ibid.
151
Ibid.
152
Ibid.
153
Ibid.
154
Ibid.
155
Nick Nuttall, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Climate Talks End With Hope for a New More
Comprehensive Legally-binding Agreement”, Sunday December 11, 2011. At
<http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2661&ArticleID=8984&l=en>
150
39
the necessary level by 2020 remains open – it is a high risk strategy for the planet
and its people.”156
The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) held in Rio de
Janeiro in June 2012 marked the 20 th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit). With thousands
of participants from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders,
the focus was on two key themes – a green economy in the context of sustainable
development and poverty eradication, and how to improve international coordination
for sustainable development.157 The outcome document “The Future We Want” is
283 paragraphs long and contains a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
designed to bring both rich and poor nations into cooperative target setting across
a range of challenges around the world - from water and land up to food waste.158
The SDGs are expected to complement the Millennium Development Goals after
2015 and they indicate that a transition to an inclusive green economy and the
realisation of a sustainable century needs to include both developed and developing
nations’ footprints as they aim to eradicate poverty and transit towards a sustainable
path.159 However, these SDGs have only been agreed in principle - with no detail,
and no real targets and thus unenforceable.
According to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the document is “unambitious and lacking
in tangible commitments to ensure sustainable development and protect the
environment.”160 Many environmentalists at the conference criticized the document
as inadequate enough to make meaningful progress.161 For example, Kumi Naidoo,
executive director of Greenpeace International has stated: “Rio+20 has turned into
an epic failure. It has failed on equity, failed on ecology, and failed on economy.”162
The World Wildlife Fund called the document “less than satisfactory from any point
of view” and warned that without improvement the conference “will have been a
colossal waste of time.”163
The UN Climate Change Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, in NovemberDecember 2012 also ended with few concrete gains in addressing climate change.
Although it resulted in agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol from 2013 to 2020, the agreement only covers Europe and Australia, which
156
Ibid.
See Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development website at <http://www.uncsd2012.org/about.html>.
158
Nick Nutall, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Inclusive Green economy Given Go Ahead by
Heads of State at Rio+20”, Friday June 22, 2012. At
<http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2688&ArticleID=9195&l=en>.
159
Ibid.
160
Gro Harlem Brundtland, “Rio+20 didn’t go far enough” The Elders: Independent global leaders working together for peace and
human rights website at <http://www.theelders.org/dialogue/rio20-didnt-go-far-enough-what-now>.
161
Brian Clark Howard “Rio+20 Brings Hope and Solutions Despite Weak Talks” (June 21, 2012) on National Geographic Daily
News website at <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120621-rio-20-hope-solutions-official-talks/>.
162
Ibid.
163
Ibid.
157
40
produces less than 15 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. While
there was commitment, in principle, from developed nations to compensate
developing nations for the impacts of climate change, only modest progress was
made on the ambition of forging, by 2015, a new post 2020 global climate deal. 164
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared climate change as an “existential
challenge for the whole human race – our way of life, our plans for the future” and
particularly pointed to issues resulting from “abnormal [weather] which is now the
normal.”165 One particular example cited by Ban Ki-moon was the November 2012
flooding of New York City. The devastation wrought by super-storm Sandy – with
253 deaths, and over US $50 billion in economic damage and disruption – is
inevitably raising fresh concern about climate change.166
The UN Climate Change Conference, held in Warsaw, Poland, in November
2013 concluded with delegates reaching a compromise on how to fight global
warming. After 30 hours of deadlock, they approved a way out for a new global
climate treaty to be signed in Paris in 2015.167 It will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
Negotiators agreed that all countries should work to curb emissions from burning
coal, oil and gas as soon as possible and ideally by the first quarter of 2015. Key
decisions adopted include further advancing the Durban Platform, the Green
Climate Fund and Long-Term Finance, the Warsaw Framework for REDD Plus, the
Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage and other decisions. 168
Although a number of nations, including the US and EU, had been calling for a
clearly defined timetable that would see countries make clear climate change
"commitments" by a deadline of early 2015, China led a push back by a group of
developing nations, arguing for more flexibility for poorer nations.169 This move drew
an angry response from the US which accused China of rolling back a previous
agreement to ensure all nations make some form of commitments through the 2015
treaty. 170 The eventual agreement resulted in a draft text that requires countries
"who are ready" to make "contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature," ideally
by early 2015 at the latest.171 The wording represented a significant watering down
of earlier proposals for "those in a position" to deliver a climate "commitment" by
Julian Hunt and Johnny Chan “Doha Climate Talks are Over – Now to Pick up the Pieces” (Dec 10, 2012) The National
website at < http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/doha-climate-talks-are-over-now-to-pick-up-thepieces>.
165
Ibid.
166
Ibid.
167
United Nations Climate Change Secretariat Press Release at
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/131123_pr_closing_cop19.pdf.
168
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at
http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php.
169
James Murray and Jessica Shankleman “COP 19: Warsaw Climate Deal Finalised as Deadlock Broken” BusinessGreen:
Sustainable Thinking at http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2308878/cop-19-warsaw-climate-deal-finalised-as-deadlockbroken.
170
Ibid.
171
Ibid.
164
41
early 2015. However, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey maintained
the UK's key objective for Warsaw had been met. "All nations have now agreed to
start their homework to prepare for a global climate change deal in 2015."172
2.4. The challenges of climate change for existing governance
mechanisms
As illustrated by the evolving climate change timeline of action, there are a number
of features of the climate change issue that present major difficulties for existing
governance mechanisms. Meadowcroft lists these as:173

Societal reach: greenhouse gases are associated with industrial and agricultural
activities which have sustained rising living standards over the past two centuries.
Fossil fuels still provide 80% of global primary energy. The transformation of existing
production and consumption patterns to reduce emissions dramatically, as well as
the necessary adaptations to climate warming, will require change that reaches
deep into current practices. Consciously steering societal adjustment on such a
scale is in many ways unprecedented.

Scientific uncertainty: although much is now understood about the processes driving
climate change and the implications for human societies, enormous uncertainties
remain: particularly about the sensitivity of the climate system (how much warming
will result from a given increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases); regional climate impacts; and the consequences for ecosystems. There is
concern about ‘tipping points’ at which radical discontinuities in current climate
patterns could occur. Although knowledge is steadily increasing, uncertainties will
continue for the foreseeable future.

Distributional and equity linkages: climate change, and responses to climate
change, will impact different groups in different ways. Some of these impacts can
be anticipated, others remain uncertain. Climate change ‘shuffles the deck’ –
changing the patterns of risk and opportunity to which countries, regions, industries,
social strata, and individuals are exposed. Equity issues (domestic and
international) have always been among the most difficult for governments to handle.
And climate change layers new dimensions on top of established concerns (regional
disparities, North/South tensions, fuel-poverty, etc).

Long time frames: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion have been
rising since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution; the climate system evolves over
decades, centuries and millennia; and managing climate change is likely to be a
172
173
Ibid.
James Meadowcroft “Climate Change Governance” Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, May 2009, 4.
42
governance challenge throughout this century. Such long term issues fit poorly with
a four year electoral cycle, the two or three year tenure of ministers and senior
officials, and of everyday politics.

Global implications: the causes and impacts of climate change are international.
And economic and other ties between nations make a collective response essential.
Yet coordinating international efforts on such a scale is a major challenge.
Meadowcroft states that each of these factors contributes to making climate change
hugely problematic for governments to manage effectively (see table 2 below).
Table 2: Climate change poses challenges to traditional political institutions 174
Structural
Underlying issues
characteristics
Long
time
frames
Political
challenges
Potential
political
responses
-200 year
international
development path
based on fossil
fuels
-economic costs of
emissions reduction must
be born today, but
benefits accrue decades
in the future
-Incremental (but
accelerating)
changes to the
composition of the
atmosphere and
increased
evidence of
human induced
climate change
-existing political
institutions scaled
to human
activities and lifespans, with 4-5
year electoral
cycles and
development
plans, and annual
budgets
-linking of short term,
medium term, and
long term policy
targets to ensure
incremental progress
towards substantial
emissions reduction in
the future (for
example, through
national and
international carbon
budgets).
-further climate
change already
‘wired in’ because
of historic
emissions
-effects of current
emissions
reductions will
take decades to
work through
climate system
174
-incentives for
politicians to defer
mitigation
because material
benefits of action
come in the
distant future
-tendency to
address more
immediate issues
-warming will
continue for more
than a century
after atmospheric
concentrations are
stabilised
-lack of
‘representation’ of
future people and
non-human
natural world in
current political
decision-making
-atmosphere is a
single sink, so
emissions
anywhere effect
the global climate
-tendency to wait
for others, as
national and local
actions appear
Ibid, 34.
43
-development of
public ethos of care
for the future: for
nature and future
generations.
-establish institutions
with a mandate to
‘think long’ and
promote the low
carbon emissions
economy
-align short term
incentives with long
term policy goals. For
example: placing a
price on carbon
emissions (through a
carbon tax and/or; cap
and trade system);
establishing rewards
for immediate
movement towards
low carbon solutions
(renewable feed-in
tariffs and portfolio
standards); and
desirable R & D
-negotiate
international
agreements
Global
implications
-emissions are
generated by all
countries, but at
vastly different
absolute and per
capita levels,
varying over time
-effects of climate
change expected
to vary
considerably from
region to region
futile and impose
immediate costs
-tendency to
depress efforts to
that of the least
enthusiastic
participant
-need to
coordinate action
by political
authorities at all
different scales
(local, provincial,
national, regional,
international,
global)
-do not wait for
international
agreements to initiate
national and local
action
-explore sectoral
initiatives
-consider national
responsibility for
embedded emissions
(total emissions
generated by national
consumption) rather
than just territorial
releases
-disjunction between
internationalised
production chains and
primarily national
regulatory systems
-fundamental
change required to
many
consumption and
production
activities
Societal
reach
-need for a ‘revolution’
in energy production
and consumption, and
dramatic changes in
transportation,
manufacturing,
construction,
agriculture, forestry
management, land use
and urban form
-implications for
population levels
and population
growth rates
-how to guide a
deliberate
transformation of
production/consu
mption patterns
-‘lock-in’ to
existing
technological
trajectories
(through sunk
investments,
industrial
structure,
business models,
regulatory
structures, and so
on)
-strength of
vested interests
that resist change
-government
leadership role in
driving societal
change
-mobilisation of
societal actors
-stimulation of
technological
innovation
-techniques to break
institutional inertia
-build change oriented
coalitions
-exploit conjunctural
circumstances
-encourage policy
integration
-clash of climate
policy needs with
withdrawal of
state from large
scale economic
intervention
-established
administrative
structures that
fragment policy
into discrete
sectors (that are
cross-cut by
climate change)
-future emissions
trajectory
uncertain
Scientific
uncertainty
-effect of given
emissions on
global temperature
uncertain
-temperature
impacts on
-uncertainty can
be used as an
excuse to defer
action by those
who fear their
material interests
will be impacted
by mitigation
-scale of
uncertainty and
unknowns make
44
-educate decision
makers and publics
about the nature of
scientific knowledge,
research, and
uncertainties
-educate decision
makers and public
about risks,
complexity and
regional weather
uncertain
-potential for
radical
discontinuities
-uncertain ecosystem
impacts
deterministic
calculus of
cost/benefit ratios
impossible
-scale of
uncertainty and
unknowns make
traditional risk
assessment
impossible
-uncertainty and
unknowns will
persist into
indefinite future
as we conduct a
one-off
experiment with
the world climate
system
Distributional
and equity
linkages
-different countries
and regions will be
impacted in
different ways, but
how remains
uncertain
-different countries
and regions have
different historical
and current
patterns of
emissions
-the international
system and
national polities
are characterised
by deep social and
economic
inequalities
-disagreement
about
responsibilities for
problems, and
how costs of
adjustment and
costs of mitigation
should be divided
-disagreement
over relevant
criteria in
determining
burden sharing
uncertainty of climate
change issues
-apply hedging
strategies
(precautionary
principle) and
avoiding high impact
events rather than
optimising
-expand knowledge
base
-take socio economic
inequalities seriously
in climate policy
design
-allow localities and
regions flexibility in
policy design and
implementation
-develop
representative forums
for feedback on policy
orientations
-difficulty in
determining costs
this generation
should carry to
reduce risks for
future generations
-uneven regional
distribution of
fossil fuel
dependence and
fossil fuel
reserves
2.5. Options for reform
In 2006, The International Institute for Sustainable Development wrote a 124 page
study titled “Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda”.175 The study
showed that although impressive institutional machinery has been built under the
current framework (i.e. numerous multilateral environmental agreements, many
meetings to advance implementation, and significant amounts of human resources
spent producing reports on the efforts undertaken) the overall state of the global
environment seems not to have improved as a consequence.176 As a result of the
175
Adil Najam, Mihaela Papa, and Nadaa Taiyab Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda (International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, 2006) 17-20.
176 Ibid.
45
study, five models of reform have been envisioned. These include the compliance
model, the new agency model, the upgrading UNEP model, organisational
streamlining model, and multiple actors’ model.
2.5.1. The “compliance model”
The “compliance model” advocates creation of a body that could provide binding
decisions to hold states and private actors accountable for non-compliance with
MEAs and resulting environmental damage.177 Several potential bodies with such
enforcement powers have been proposed. The first proposal is the creation of a
World Environment Court, envisioned as a permanent institution along the lines of
the European Court of Human Rights.178 The court would ensure compliance with
MEAs and uphold the new right to a healthy environment. The second potential
body is an upgrade of the Trusteeship Council – in order for it to have authority over
global commons and also to represent interests of potential beneficiaries, especially
future generations.179 The third proposal is to broaden the mandate of the Security
Council to include environmental security. Ideally, the compliance model would
solve the issue of free riders, ensuring care for the global commons, match judicial
enforcement available elsewhere (especially in the WTO), enhance predictability
and intergenerational concern of environmental law and directly impact compliance
with MEAs. 180 However, as previously stated, states are generally unwilling to
accept a compliance body’s value judgments and there is a very low probability that
all states would voluntarily accept this model.181
2.5.2. The “new agency model”
The “new agency model” refers to the creation of a new organisation outside UNEP
(eg. joining agencies such as UNEP, CSD, UNDP and others) within a World
Organisation for Environment and Development or a Global Environmental
Organisation, modeled after the WTO. It would possess extensive rule-making
authority to address market failures and facilitate negotiation of international
standards to be implemented by all countries.182 This model could help to alleviate
the problems of fragmentation and weakness of environmental governance within
the UN system. However, it would present a major challenge as the current system
177
Ibid.
Ibid.
179 Ibid.
180 Ibid.
181 Ibid.
182 Ibid.
178
46
is strongly decentralised and individual environmental entities strongly resist
takeovers.183
2.5.3. The “upgrading UNEP model”
The “upgrading UNEP model” would see UNEP upgraded to a specialised agency
in order to strengthen its status as an anchor institution for the global environment
(as since its creation it has seen a limited legal mandate, a lack of funds and location
has been an issue).184 It has also been suggested that UNEP be upgraded into a
decentralised United Nations Environment Organisation (UNEO), with its own legal
identity, and comprising of a general assembly, executive structure and
secretariat.185 Upgrading UNEP requires less financial and diplomatic investment
than creating a completely new organisation. However, focusing reform debate only
on UNEP distracts from the broader institutional challenges, and it is not yet clear
just how much of a difference specialised agency status will actually give.186
2.5.4. The “organizational streamlining model”
The “organisational streamlining model” suggests firstly the integrating of
environmental institutions into ‘clusters’ as a way to achieve goals of environmental
conventions, while also pursuing efficiency gains and improving coherence of
environmental governance. 187 This model would also address duplication and
overlaps by clarifying mandates of different entities, addressing their conflicting
agendas and building upon their interlinkages.188 Implementation streamlining with
states could help in developing plans for coordinating the implementation of the Rio
Conventions on climate change, desertification and biological diversity.
189
Institutional fragmentation increases visibility of environmental protection, promotes
specialisation and innovation, and increases commitments of states that host
secretariats. 190 However, streamlining also has many disadvantages including
institutional overlap, high financial and administrative costs, and increased reporting
183
Ibid.
Ibid. It would then be able to adopt treaties, have its own budget and potentially use innovative financial mechanisms. It
would also be able to serve as an information and capacity clearinghouse and set broad policy guidelines for action within the
Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF).
185 Ibid. It would incorporate UNEP and GMEF; take up UNEP’s mandate with respect to its normative function; and serve as
the authority for environment within the UN system.
186 Ibid.
187 Ibid. Clusters can be issue-based, functional/organisational, or they can have a particular regional scope (co-location and
“merger” of secretariats).
188 Ibid.
189 Ibid.
190 Ibid. Some level of redundancy is also desirable as it serves as an insurance against institutional decline.
184
47
demands (a particular problem in developing countries), resulting in a reduction of
state participation and decrease in implementation of environmental law. 191
2.5.5. The “multiple actors’ model”
Finally, the “multiple actors’ model” argues that the system of governance comprises
multiple actors (including states, international environmental organisations, related
international organisations, civil society organisations, and public concern and
action) whose actions need to be mutually reinforcing and better coordinated.192 The
first reform proposal thus suggests the integration of the environment into the larger
context of sustainable development by allowing organisations to grow by creating
venues for them to interact and “transact.” 193 The second reform proposal is to
create multiple channels of implementation which naturally emerge through the
complexity of today’s environmental threats (particularly climate change) but can
lack direction if one is not provided by the system. 194 Thus the solutions proposed
by this model are broad and offer directions the system should follow, rather than
specific organisational improvements.195
2.6. Conclusion
Although the above reform proposals are legitimate responses – they may still suffer
the same systemic flaws as presently encountered. For example, the challenges of
reaching global consensus would undoubtedly remain largely unabated; the reform
options do not articulate the need for urgency in finding solutions; and ethics is still
a concept left outside the door. When the influence of groups that fear adverse
consequences of mitigation policies is combined with scientific uncertainty; the
complexity of reaching global agreements; and long time frames - the natural
tendency is for governments to delay action, to seek to avoid antagonizing influential
groups, and to adopt less ambitious climate programs. This is not conducive to
achieving effective solutions. Effective climate change governance will require civil
society groups, governments and institutions to play a more active role in bringing
about shifts in interest perceptions. However, in order to actuate a shift, legal rights
and responsibilities must be adjusted and new ideas and accepted norms and
191
Ibid.
Ibid.
193 Ibid. Preferring environmental to sustainable development governance may result in further marginalisation of
environmental problems on the international agenda, alienation of developing countries, and continuing regime clashes
between environment and other relevant international regimes. A General Agreement on Environment and Development
should be negotiated to codify universally accepted sustainable development principles and serve as an umbrella for existing
MEAs.
194 Ibid. Global environmental governance ‘quality’ will be increasingly determined by the interaction among five entities in
implementation and the ability of the system to facilitate their interaction, e.g., through global public policy networks.
195 Ibid.
192
48
expectations must be formed. An ethical dimension is thus crucial to achieving
effective solutions. This dissertation accordingly proposes utilising the wisdom of
the world’s religions as a carrier of ethics into the international arena. It proposes
the creation of a religious organisation at the United Nations, in which to provide the
ethical constituent to policymaking. The effectiveness of any newly-formed religious
organisation would depend on its ability to cooperate with national governments,
international organisations, and civil society institutions.196 The key objective would
be to transform the UN from the traditional “diplomatic club” and arena of national
governments’ dealings into an inclusive international body representing different
nations, ethnic, social and professional groups with a direct influence on the
decision-making process.197 The United Nations could thus be guided by universal
spiritual and moral principles in addition to state interests. Before evaluating the
likelihood of the proposal, however, the thesis must first provide an account of how
ethics, religion, policy and law intersect. The following chapters provide the required
narrative. First, the justification for an ethical dimension for climate change will be
appraised. The correlation between ethics and religion will be examined, as will the
nexus between religion and law. The proposal for a religious organisation at the UN
will be discussed in chapter 7 after expanding on these central and inter-connected
themes.
Vladimir Petrovsky “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on
World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 49.
197
Ibid, 52.
196
49
50
The Ethical Implications of Climate Change
“What distinguishes ethical issues from economic and scientific arguments about climate
change is that ethics is about duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others while
economic and scientific arguments are usually understood to be about “value-neutral” “facts”
which once established are often deployed in arguments about self-interest.”1
3.1. 1. Introduction
The previous chapter examined the inner workings and dynamics of international
climate change law. After surveying the evolution of the current climate change
regime and its related policies, it appears the measures created for dealing with
climate change are presently too weak to have a substantial impact. Economic
development remains the main focus and very little thought is given to the ethical
implications of climate change. This thesis proposes the problem be approached
from an entirely new perspective, with precedence given to ethical concerns. The
great variability of climatic outcomes and of countries’ capacities to cope with
mitigation and adaptation efforts must be taken into account. The welfare of future
generations and other species must also be considered. The purpose of this chapter
therefore is to discuss the nature of ethics and its importance to climate change
policymaking. It will introduce specific ethical issues associated with climate change
and consider how to address these issues more substantially in future dialogue. As
defining ethics is integral to this process the chapter begins with an explanatory
narrative.
3.2. Defining Ethics
The English word ‘ethics’ has its origins in ancient Greece. It is derived from the
Greek word ethos meaning ‘character’ or ‘custom’.2 It is the domain of inquiry that
examines statements about what is right, fair, just or good; about what we ought to
do, not just about what is the case or what is most acceptable or expedient. 3 Noel
Preston states the distinction between ‘ought’ and ‘is’ signals the need to distinguish
ethical claims from factual ones. Facts describe and they can be tested as to their
falsity or the truth. Ethical claims prescribe and are concerned with how people
Donald A Brown “Ten Reasons Why Examining Climate Change Policy Controversies through an Ethical Lens is a Practical
Imperative” Climate Ethics Website http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/ .
2
Noel Preston Understanding Ethics (3rd ed) (The Federation Press, NSW, 2007) 16.
3
Ibid.
1
51
ought to behave and suggest how social and individual behaviour can be improved.
As such, Preston says, ethical claims are debatable and contestable. 4
Peter Singer asserts ethics is inescapable. Ethical ramifications can be found in
most of our choices. He says that even if we deliberately avoid all moral language,
we will find it impossible to prevent ourselves inwardly classifying actions as right or
wrong.5 He poses the questions: How should we live? Should we aim at happiness
or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness,
will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more specific questions
that face us: Is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in
opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? And what are our
obligations to the other creatures with whom we share this planet and to the
generations of humans who will come after us? 6 Singer states that ethics deals with
such questions at all levels and its subject consists of the fundamental issues of
practical decision-making.7 Its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value
and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong. 8
The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change report states that, generally
speaking, values are general apprehensions about the importance of objects
(material or ideal, physical or spiritual) according to certain criteria. 9 Ethical values
form the basis of decision-making and action in accordance with an ideal accepted
in a given moral system.10 They are expressed in the notions of good and evil, right
and wrong, just and unjust, and what does or does not deserve respect. The report
also states that “in comparison with merely desirable things, situational, pragmatic,
and prudential preferences, political convictions or instrumental values, ethical
values differ by their universalizable character.”11 Therefore, decision-making and
action based on ethical values are not arbitrary choices, but rather they follow
principles that are of such importance that they are deemed to be binding on all
rational human beings. 12 Ethical values are distinguished by their prescriptive
character and they communicate a “must do” requirement to all who subscribes to
them. If denied, society has a legitimate expectation that the dissenter(s) provide a
sound, rational justification for doing so. If such a justification cannot be provided,
society may place some kind of sanction on the dissenter(s).13
4
Ibid.
Peter Singer The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (Princeton University Press, Oxford, 2011) Preface.
6
Peter Singer “Ethics” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1985) 627-648.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change” Report by the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and
Technology (COMEST) (UNESCO, France, 2010) 19.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
5
52
Fundamental ethical values, the Report states, include the good of individuals
and communities; solidarity and unity between individuals and within communities;
virtues (character traits that typically enable rational agents to promote the good of
individuals and communities, or solidarity and unity between individuals and within
communities); and excellence in the good, solidarity and virtues expressed in moral
ideals. 14 These values are promoted through ethical principles such as – ‘do no
harm’, ‘contribute to the good of others’, ‘be non-violent and just’, and ‘be tolerant
and respect the dignity of others’.15 An added characteristic of the ethical domain,
the report claims, is that it predominantly deals with human agency (including
decision-making) and its effects. 16 Therefore, the basis of the ethical domain is
comprised of the ability of humans to choose freely and rationally between different
value-laden options, and the expected consequences following from these
choices.17 Thus, the ethical domain is circumscribed not only by the value choices
made by humans, but also by the critical weighing of the expected consequences
of their actions.18
3.3. The importance of an ethical viewpoint to climate change
dialogue
The Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change is an
essential source for assessing the importance of an ethical dimension to climate
change dialogue.19 The document declares that reflection on the ethical dimensions
of climate change is urgent on four key grounds: (1) Unless the ethical dimensions
are considered, the international community may choose responses that are
ethically unsupportable or unjust; (2) Many profound ethical questions are hidden in
scientific and economic arguments about various climate change policy proposals;
(3) An equitable approach to climate change policy is necessary to overcome
barriers currently blocking progress in international negotiations; and (4) An
ethically-based global consensus on climate change may prevent further disparities
between rich and poor, and reduce potential international tension that will arise from
climate-caused food and water scarcities and perceived inequitable use of the
global atmospheric commons as a carbon sink.20
14
Ibid 20.
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change ((For the complete text of this declaration refer
http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/documents/declaration.pdf).
20
Ibid.
15
53
An ethical viewpoint is further endorsed by Peter Singer. He considers, in his
2011 book Practical Ethics, the long-standing argument that the only obligation we
have to strangers is not to harm them.21 For most of human existence that view
would have been easy to live by as our ancestors lived in small groups of several
hundred people, and those living on the other side of a river or mountain might well
have been in another world. 22 Ethical principles were therefore developed to deal
with problems arising in these small communities but not to help those outside it.
Singer states the harms that it was considered wrong to cause were generally clear
and well defined and the developed inhibitions against, and emotional responses
to, such actions still form the basis for much of our moral thinking.23 However, in
today’s world people are connected to others the world over in ways our ancestors
could never have imagined. The finding that human activities are changing the
climate of our planet has brought with it knowledge of new ways in which we can
harm one another. Singer gives the example of a car releasing carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere due to fossil fuel consumption. The chemical composition of the
atmosphere is altered, and hence, the climate is also altered. This in turn, has an
effect on others.24 Singer states climate change is thus causing, every week, as
many deaths as occurred in the terrorist attacks in the United States on September
11, 2001. 25 The immediate causes of the additional deaths are mostly climatesensitive diseases such as malaria, dengue, and diarrhea, which is more common
when there is a lack of safe water. 26 Malnutrition resulting from failed crops
(because of high temperatures or low rainfall) is also responsible for many deaths.
Changes can also be seen in the fertile, densely settled delta regions in Egypt,
Bangladesh, India and Vietnam, which are at risk from rising sea levels. 27 The
Sunderbans, islands in the Ganges delta that are home to four million Indians, are
disappearing – two islands have vanished entirely; in total, an area of land
measuring thirty-one square miles has disappeared over the last thirty years.
Hundreds of families have had to move to camps for displaced people. 28 Some of
the small Pacific nations like the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu, which consist of lowlying coral atolls, are in similar danger. Within a few decades, these nations may be
submerged beneath the waves. And Singer states that these are only the early
signs.29 There is much greater change still to come. In 2007, the Fourth Assessment
21
Peter Singer Practical Ethics (3rd Ed) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011) 216.
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid 217.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
22
54
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that a temperature
rise in the range of 2 to 2.40C, by the year 2080, would put stress on water resources
used by 1.2 billion people. 30 Rising sea levels would expose, each year, an
additional 29 million people to coastal flooding. If temperatures rise as much as
3.30C over the same period, the stress on water resources would affect 2.5 to 3.2
billion people, and each year would expose an additional 29 million to coastal
flooding.31
It is not only humans who will suffer from climate change. Millions of animals will
also die in droughts and floods. Some will be able to move as their environments
change, but many others will have no place to go. In some regions, states Singer,
alpine species may be able to move to higher ground as temperatures increase, but
in countries such as Australia, alpine plants and animals are already clinging to the
most elevated regions, and there is nowhere higher to go. 32 Global warming will
therefore cause extinctions on a huge scale and due to the fact that very few people
see the direct consequences of their actions, there is a definite lack of any kind of
instinctive inhibitions or emotional response against causing the harm. As Singer
points out, most have trouble seeing it as harm at all.33
3.3.1. The marginalisation of ethics in climate change discussions
Brendan Mackey, presenting at the Earth Charter +10 event in Mexico, 2010 stated
one reason ethical issues are not being more explicitly analysed is due to confusion
as to what is meant by ‘ethics’ in a climate change context. 34 To act ethically, he
said, means that in deciding what is the right or wrong thing to do in a given situation,
we go beyond self-interest and give consideration to the consequences of our
actions (or non-actions) for the well-being of others. 35 Many people associate
‘ethics’ only with the rights and wrongs of personal behaviour such as are addressed
by an organisations ‘code of conduct’ for their staff. From this perspective, he states,
ethics is a personal matter and not central to international affairs. 36 However, when
obligations are created for governments that require them to go beyond
consideration of self-interest alone in making decisions, and to consider their duties
and responsibilities towards others (including people in other countries, future
30
Ibid.
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Prof Brendan Mackey “Climate Change, Ethics and the Earth Charter” Paper presented at the Earth Charter +10 event, Mexico
2010.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
31
55
generations of people, and even other species), then ethics is central to international
negotiations.37
Mackey continues by stating that conventional notions of the morality of the
nation state accepts ethics as part of international relations but only up to the point
where it does not serve the national self-interest. This notion is often challenged by
the proposition that nations should act beyond their self-interest in their decision
making.38 However, the influence of the conventional paradigm still reigns such that
the climate change negotiating positions of many (if not most) industrialised nations,
and many (if not most) of the powerful developing nations, are dominated by
national self-interest largely defined by standard measures of short-term economic
costs and benefits.39 For example, Mackey contends one of the main arguments
made in Australia against climate change policies is that ‘Australia is not a major
polluter, any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not significantly influence
climate change, but mitigation policies will add unnecessary costs to the Australian
economy’. 40 These arguments are politically powerful because Australia obtains
around 90% of its energy from coal-fired power stations and it is the world’s largest
exporter of coal.41
Mackey asserts the divergence between the influences in decision-making of
‘national self-interest’ versus considering ‘responsibilities for others’ is perhaps the
most important ethical issue when considering the current state of international
climate change negotiations.42 Never before have governments been required to
consider the global condition of human life and the far-off well-being of people and
other species in the future. He asks how prepared are we to give consideration in
our decision making to our responsibilities for the welfare of people in other
countries and future generations?43
Harris also states that climate change negotiations are more often than not
exemplified by preoccupation with narrow and short-term perceived national
interests rather than the pressing need to mitigate global warming and to respond
aggressively to its impacts. 44 This can be demonstrated by the December 2009
United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, which failed to reach
any formal or binding agreement on steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or
to deal with the impacts of global warming.
37
45
The conference revealed a
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
44
Paul G Harris “Misplaced Ethics of Climate Change: Political vs. Environmental Geography” Ethics, Place and Environment
Vol 13 No 2 June 2010, 215-222.
45
Ibid.
38
39
56
fundamental flaw in the international politics of climate change, namely underlying
norms and ethics that place nearly all value and importance in states and their
national interests, rather than in the people who ultimately cause and are affected
by climate change.46
While national self-interest is the overarching reason for ignoring or downplaying
ethical issues, there are several other closely related explanations why ethics is not
upheld as a key player in climate change discussions. These reasons include the
disclaimers of economic harm, lack of scientific certainty, lack of global consensus,
and the wait for better technologies. 47 Each of these four disclaimers will be
examined in more detail in section 3.3.2.
Finally, Andy Reisinger and Howard Larsen have stated that the design and
analysis of public policies related to climate change do not normally make explicit
reference to ethical dimensions. 48 They state that excluding explicit ethics from
policy analysis could be seen to provide a more robust and objective basis for public
policy, given that ethical principles generally require subjective judgments about
which principles should guide decisions.49 However, they say, this raises a dilemma
in the context of climate change, where one of the key challenges of public policy
making is to achieve a framework that can endure beyond the electoral cycle and
that can bridge the large temporal and geographical distances between greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change impacts.50
3.3.2. Specific climate change ethical issues
Because an ethical dimension is so important to climate change discussion, eight
organisations launched the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of
Climate Change (CPEDCC) during the UNFCCC COP-10 in Buenos Aires. 51
CPEDCC also issued the Buenos Aires Declaration on the Ethical Dimensions of
Climate Change, which set out why express ethical reflection on climate change
issues is urgent. It identified specific ethical issues and associated questions
concerning climate change about which express ethical reflection is an international
imperative. 52 Each of the issues was identified in response to actual issues in
46
Ibid.
Dennis Patrick O’Hara and Alan Abelsohn “Ethical Response to Climate Change” in Ethics and the Environment Vol 16, No 1,
Spring 2011.
48
Andy Reisinger and Howard Larsen “Recognising Ethics to Help a Constructive Climate Change Debate” in Public Policy: Why
Ethics Matter Jonathan Boston, Andrew Bradstock, and David Eng (eds) (ANU E-Press, Canberra, 2010) 117.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
The organisations that formed the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change include The Rock
Ethics Institute at Pennsylvania State University, the Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy,
the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law–Ethics Working Group, the Centre for Applied Ethics at Cardiff University,
the Centre For Global Ethics at Birmingham University, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, EcoEquity, and
Oxford Climate Policy. The Rock Ethics Institute at Pennsylvania State University is the Secretariat for this Program.
52
“White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change” Rock Ethics Institute (Paper can be found at
http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate).
47
57
contention in global climate change negotiations and the information resulted in the
White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change. These issues have been
summarised below.
3.3.2.1. Responsibility for damages
The first issue refers to responsibility for damages. Who is ethically responsible for
the consequences of climate change? (I.e. who is liable for the burdens of preparing
for and then responding to climate change or paying for unavoidable damages?)
The White Paper states that as people around the world have basic rights to be
protected from the actions of others that threaten life, health, and security, and given
that the effects of climate change will violate these rights, norms must be agreed
upon by the international community to establish responsibility for mitigation,
adaptation, and for reparation of damages due to climate change.53 Several norms
referring to responsibility for climate change have been established by both the Rio
Declaration and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
These norms include: (1) Nations have the responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions of activities within their jurisdiction; (2) Polluters have the responsibility
to bear the costs of pollution; (3) Nations have the responsibility to reduce their
emissions based upon equity to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system; (4) The developed nations have the responsibility to take the
lead in reducing the threat of climate change; and (5) Nations may not use scientific
uncertainty as an excuse for taking cost-effective action to reduce the threat of
climate change.54 However, the White Paper states that while the norms established
are significant, they are not sufficient. Principles of retributive and distributive justice
are more applicable to determining responsibility for harm from human-induced
climate change.55 These principles make those responsible for harm in proportion
to their contribution to the harm in the absence of morally relevant principles that
would allow for other assignments of responsibility. 56
Because harms from climate change are related to past and current emissions
levels, the White Paper states the following facts are pertinent to any nation’s
responsibility for damages to others: the magnitude of total national and per capita
emissions during the period of concern; the nation’s proportional share of total
global emissions that have led to climate change that has or will cause harm; and
historical contributions of greenhouse gas emissions. 57 According to relevant
53
Ibid.
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
54
58
principles of justice, those who claim entitlement to use the atmosphere or other
natural systems as a sink for their emissions at levels proportionately greater than
others have the burden of demonstrating that their claim for entitlement to unequal
levels of emissions is based upon morally relevant criteria. 58 Also, when multiple
parties have contributed to cause harm to others, they will be responsible to the
proportion of harm that they have inflicted when it is possible to determine each
relative contribution.59
3.3.2.2. Atmospheric targets
The second issue focuses on atmospheric targets. What ethical principles should
guide the choice of specific climate change policy objectives, including but not
limited to, maximum human-induced warming and atmospheric greenhouse gas
targets? This issue raises profound ethical questions because the levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will determine what plants, animals, and
people survive and what damages will be caused to humans and the environment.
The rights that people have to be protected against threats from others to life, health,
and security, and the UNFCCC commitment made by nations to reduce emissions
to levels that would “prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the
climate system” are basic ethical principles that must be considered in setting
targets.60 However, this raises profound questions of distributive justice because
climate change impacts will not be distributed equally; because nations and peoples
have different responsibilities for current levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere; and because nations and peoples are differentially vulnerable to
climate change impacts. For this reason, nations who are willing to tolerate some
climate change damages to their nation cannot ignore damages that will be imposed
upon others without their consent.61
Questions of procedural justice must also be raised because no country or
person has the right to put other nations or persons at grave risk without their
consent. Procedural justice demands the participation of victims and the vulnerable
in decision-making about what risks are or are not acceptable, and under what
conditions risks will be accepted. The interests of non-represented future
58
Ibid.
Ibid.
So long as atmospheric GHG levels threaten basic human rights, the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate
Change cannot find any respected ethical system that would justify allowing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases to rise thereby
additionally jeopardizing human rights. Therefore atmospheric levels of GHGs should be stabilized at the lowest possible levels
above existing atmospheric GHG concentrations.
61
Ibid.
59
60
59
generations and non-humans must also be considered. 62 Procedural fairness is
discussed in more detail below (refer section 3.3.2.8).
3.3.2.3. Allocating greenhouse gas emissions reductions
The third issue, according to the White Paper, refers to allocating greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. What ethical principles should be followed in allocating
responsibility among people, organisations, and governments to prevent ethically
intolerable impacts from climate change? Those who advocate that greenhouse gas
emissions allocations should be based upon status quo emissions levels suggest
that some nations should be given rights in the continued use of the atmosphere as
a sink on the basis of their prior use. 63 However, this raises serious ethical
dilemmas. For example, unlike some natural resources such as water, the global
atmosphere has never been recognized as a subject of private property rights.
Rather, it has been viewed as a global commons available for use by all people.
Those who may be harmed by levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have
never consented to the appropriation of the atmosphere as a sink. 64 The idea of
recognising property rights in natural resources that have gained higher value
through labour is not applicable to the atmosphere. This line of thinking is based on
two assumptions: (1) that there will be sufficient quantities of the natural resource
leftover for others to use (which is not true of the atmospheric greenhouse gas
sinks); and (2) that the persons claiming property rights to natural resources have
increased its value through their labour (but in the case of atmospheric sinks they
have diminished the value of the atmosphere).65 Therefore, to adequately address
issues of equity in allocating greenhouse gas targets among nations will involve
issues of distributive justice. Traditional distributive justice demands that benefits
and burdens of public policy be distributed according to concepts of equality,
modified only by morally relevant considerations of need or merit. 66 Distributive
justice puts the burden on those who want to be treated differently from others to
show that the basis for being treated differently is based on morally relevant criteria.
For this reason, those who propose a method for defining equity that is not based
upon giving all people equal rights to use the atmosphere have the burden of
proving that differences in treatment that they demand are based on merit,
deservedness, or other morally relevant criteria. 67 One such distinction that
distributive justice would acknowledge as a relevant basis for treating nations
62
Ibid.
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
63
60
differently in greenhouse gas emissions allocations is differences in responsibility
for causing the existing problem. This “polluter-pays” principle is consistent with
distributive justice because polluters deserve to have greater responsibilities for the
problems they cause.68 Another distinction is differences in needs and capacities.
Developing countries where the citizens cannot meet their basic needs merit having
lesser responsibilities than other countries.69
An equal per capita allocation would also be consistent with principles of justice
for several reasons. First, it treats all individuals as equals and therefore is
consistent with most theories of distributive justice. Second, it would implement the
ethical maxim that all people should have equal rights to use global commons. Third,
it would implement the widely accepted “polluter-pays” principle, and fourthly, it
would recognize the need of developing countries to increase their emissions to
meet the basic needs of their citizens.70 The White Paper states that equity and
justice demand that policy makers examine whether those who are harmed by
public policy decisions on allocations of burdens and benefits are being treated
fairly. 71 For this reason, all people who would be affected by greenhouse gas
allocation schemes have a right to fair representation in decision-making.
The UNFCCC has established the norm that nations should reduce their
emissions on the basis of “equity.” This should be considered a minimum normative
requirement, to be interpreted in the context of other ethical and justice
considerations relevant to distributing benefits and burdens.72 Therefore, although
the amount of human-caused temperature increases that has been experienced
thus far is linked to the historical levels of greenhouse gas emissions earlier than
1990, the 1990 baseline level adopted in the Kyoto Protocol as a matter of equity
should not necessarily be determinative of the point in time at which responsibility
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is triggered.73 The White Paper maintains
the level of historical emissions from countries is a relevant factor that could be
considered in determining responsibility along with other ethically relevant
considerations.
74
Although
most
developing
countries
have
contributed
comparatively small amounts to elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, any developing nation which exceeds its fair share of emissions that
interfere with the rights of other people also needs to take action to maintain
68
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
71
Ibid. Philosopher John Rawls has suggested that the principles of justice that should be followed in allocating society’s burdens
and benefits are those that would be agreed upon by rational self-interested persons behind a “veil of ignorance” about their
positions in the society. In this light, policy makers would adopt greenhouse gas reduction allocation schemes that give maximum
rights to use the atmosphere to the poorest, least-advantaged people.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
69
70
61
emissions levels below its fair share of safe global emissions.75 In addition, there is
an ethical imperative that each developing nation makes every effort to support
sustainable development practices.
3.3.2.4. Scientific uncertainty
The fourth issue relates to scientific uncertainty. What is the ethical significance of
the need to make climate change decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty?
Even if science could accurately describe levels of risk, ethical questions about the
acceptability of the risk arise. 76 For instance, although science may conclude that
certain levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere create a risk that the West
Antarctic ice sheet may melt and increase sea levels by many meters, science
cannot say whether this additional risk is acceptable. Science is designed to identify
and describe facts and cannot, by itself, generate prescriptive guidance. Science
alone cannot tell society what it should do about various threats. Furthermore,
science alone cannot determine the quantity of proof that should trigger preventative
actions. For this reason, climate change decisions in the face of scientific
uncertainty about impacts must be understood to raise a mixture of ethical and
scientific questions.77
The White Paper stresses that all ethical systems agree that those who engage
in risky behaviour are not vindicated simply because there is uncertainty involved in
determining whether or not their behaviour will actually cause damage.78 There are
many laws that implement this well-established norm. For instance, for a defendant
to be convicted of reckless driving or reckless endangerment a prosecutor simply
has to prove that the defendant acted in a way that he or she should have known to
be risky. 79 Therefore, as a matter of ethics, a relevant question in the face of
scientific uncertainty about harmful consequences of human behaviour is whether
there is a reasonable basis for concluding that serious harm to others could result
from the behaviour. In the case of climate change, scientists have understood the
potential of human activities to change the climate for many years and have known
that these changes could harm humans, plants, animals and ecosystems. In
addition, during the last decade, the threat of human induced climate change to
human health and the environment has been widely discussed in scientific
literature.80 And the IPCC has been telling the world that great harm from global
75
It should be noted, however, this obligation of developing nations to reduce emissions should not be construed as a limitation
on rights to make morally relevant arguments about what constitutes their nations fair share of global emissions.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
62
warming is likely. For this reason, climate change causing actions constitute risky
behaviour that is ethically unsupportable. As such, nations cannot deny that their
emissions create a risk to human health and the environment around the world,
even if specific predictions of the timing and magnitude of global warming impacts
are contestable. The result is that nations emitting significant amounts of
greenhouse gases are engaging in risky behaviour which has ethical significance
even if there is uncertainty about actual consequences.81
This argument of scientific uncertainty does not withstand minimum ethical
scrutiny and there are various factors implicated in this. First, there will be enormous
adverse potential impacts on human life, liberty, and personal security, as well as
on the environment from human induced climate change.82 Second, there will be
disproportionate effects on the poorest people of the world. 83 Third, the real potential
for catastrophic climate surprises are much greater than impacts often predicted
that rely on assumptions of smooth, linear responses to climate change.84 Fourth,
much of climate change science has never been in dispute even if one
acknowledges uncertainty about timing or magnitude of climate change impacts. 85
Fifth, climate change damage is probably already being experienced by some
people worldwide.86 Sixth, there is a strong likelihood that serious and irreversible
damage will be experienced before all scientific uncertainties can be eliminated. 87
Seventh, the longer nations wait to take action, the more difficult it will be to stabilize
greenhouse gases at levels which don’t create serious damage to humans, plants,
animals, and ecosystems. 88 Eighth, nations have already decided not to use
scientific uncertainty as an excuse for inaction on climate change when they agreed
to the precautionary principle in the UNFCCC.89 And finally, those most vulnerable
to climate change impacts have not consented to the risk imposed by climate
change.90
3.3.2.5. Cost to national economies
The fifth issue refers to the cost to national economies. Is the commonly used
justification of national cost for delaying or minimizing climate change action
ethically justified? If nations justify their refusal to take action to reduce emissions
81
Ibid.
Ibid.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
85
Ibid.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid. Because nations have consented to be bound by the precautionary principle in relation to climate change science, the
failure to apply the precautionary principle in developing climate change policies also violates the ethical norm that a nation should
keep its promises.
90
Ibid.
82
63
on the basis of cost to them alone, their position is ethically unsupportable because
no person or nation has a right either to harm others as a means to achieve their
economic health or to endanger others’ life, health, or security. Responsibility for
reducing emissions should be derived from rights theories and principles of
distributive justice - not on the cost to the polluter. 91 Although choosing policy
options on the basis of maximizing net present economic welfare has been widely
used by some governments as justification for government policy, this approach is
ethically problematic as it undermines duties that nations have to refrain from
causing harm to others and the rights that all people have to life, liberty, and
security.92 Since principles of justice would give all people equal rights to use the
atmosphere in absence of morally relevant criteria that would entitle people to
different levels of use, those who advocate that use of cost as a basis for
determining responsibility for greenhouse gas reductions bear the burden of
identifying morally relevant criteria that justify the use of cost of reductions as a
basis for determining responsibility. 93
To use “willingness-to-pay” as the exclusive measure of value of the benefits of
climate change policy in cost-benefit analyses can result in the focus on one type of
value at the expense of other approaches to value.94 For instance, as some value
systems recognize inherent value in the life of some living beings, an approach that
only recognizes the market value of beings transforms inherent value into
instrumental value, the very thing prohibited by some value systems.95 Putting a
market price on something that should be protected because of ethical duty can
undermine the duty. Since people have rights to be protected from harm to their life,
health, and security, the use of “willingness-to-pay” as the measure of the value of
life, health, and security of others who have not consented to this valuation
undermines duties to do no harm to others without their free, informed consent. 96
Failure to clearly identify all methodological assumptions in cost-benefit analyses in
determining costs and benefits, in selecting which reduction strategies will be
considered in cost calculations, and in determining which adverse climate change
impacts will be considered in benefit calculations given scientific uncertainty about
impacts, violates principles of free informed consent that are required to assure fair
participation in climate change decision making.97 And by assuming only mid-level
range potential impacts when more serious harms are plausible is also ethically
91
Ibid. Ability to pay can however be relevant.
Ibid.
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
95
Ibid.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
92
93
64
problematic if it leads to actions that are not sufficient to avoid great harm to life,
health, and security of others that have not consented to failure to consider all
potential harms to them.98
3.3.2.6. Independent responsibility to act
The sixth issue focuses on the independent responsibility to act. Is the commonly
used reason for delaying or minimizing climate change action that any nation need
not act until others agree on action, ethically justifiable? 99 The duty to cease
activities that harm others is not diminished if others who are contributing to the
harm fail to cease their harmful behaviour. No nation or person has a right to
continue destructive behaviour on the basis that others who are contributing to the
damage have not ceased.100 Since Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that Annex I
countries would take the lead in combating climate change and modifying future
trends, these countries should undertake policies and measures to limit their
emissions regardless of actions taken by non-Annex I country Parties.101 Violating
a provision of the UNFCCC is considered a wrongful act under international law,
and is therefore an unethical action for all consenting nations. 102 Even in the
absence of a violation of a specific agreement, actions that harm another state may
be regarded as wrongful under international law. Greenhouse gases are affecting
global climate, and the adverse impacts of climate change are felt by nations far
from the sources of the emissions. High emitting nations therefore have a legal and
ethical responsibility to reduce emissions that harm others and this duty applies
regardless of efforts undertaken by other nations.103
3.3.2.7. Potential new technologies
The seventh issue relates to potential new technologies. The argument that we
should minimize climate change action until new, less-costly technologies may be
invented in the future is not ethically justifiable.104 Past and present emissions are
already causing serious harm to people, plants, animals, and ecosystems. Given
this, parties have a duty to take the necessary steps to reduce damage caused,
including emission reductions for those parties whose emissions are above their just
98
Ibid. This must include harm to future generations as current discounting benefits in cost-benefit analyses assumes that only
contemporary investor-individuals’ interests count in determining worth. Since nations agreed in the adopting the UNFCCC to
protect the interests of future generations, discounting benefits and harms in cost-benefit analyses can violate the duty of nations
to keep promises made in treaties.
99
Ibid.
100
Ibid.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid.
104
Ibid.
65
share of global emissions. 105 Furthermore, if parties delay making reductions to
levels of emissions that constitute their just share, these parties should be held
responsible for harm caused by their delay. (It could be that costs due to reparations
for damage caused by such delays could cost more than the current costs of
reducing emissions).106
The assumption that current emission reduction technologies are unaffordable
is questionable. 107 A combination of lifestyle changes (public versus individual
transportation, local versus imported food consumption) and readily available and
affordable renewable energy technologies can significantly reduce emissions. 108
Alternative transportation systems and vehicles are now readily available. In
addition, human settlement patterns and energy conservation processes that
reduce emissions are being applied globally. 109 Many promising possibilities are
emerging all over the world and should not be underestimated. Since humanity has
the knowledge, the financial facilities, and technology to reduce emissions, it is likely
misleading and unethical to take a position that no or hardly any such options
exist.110
In making the claim that new less costly technologies will eventually exist to solve
the problem of climate change, parties are speculating that these technologies will
be developed in time to avoid additional damages. 111 But what if they are not
developed in time? It is ethically irresponsible to fail to act to reduce the threat of
harm on the basis of speculation, especially when there are methods for reducing
emissions already technologically available.112 Those who wish to wait to take steps
to prevent harmful consequences from current behaviour have the burden of proof
in demonstrating the feasibility of the premise that these new technologies will be
available in time to avoid serious damages.113
3.3.2.8. Procedural fairness
The eighth issue refers to procedural fairness. What principles of procedural justice
should be followed to assure fair representation in decision making? Given basic
human rights to life, health, and security, those who might be harmed by climate
change policy options have a right to free informed consent to being exposed to
climate change.114 In order to give free, informed consent, persons must not be
105
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid.
106
107
66
forced to consent, they must be in possession of all relevant information, and they
must understand policy options. 115 Nations therefore have a duty to disclose all
assumptions and uncertainties entailed by climate change policy options to those
who will be affected by the policy so that they have an opportunity to exercise free
informed consent to policies that could harm them.116 Nations also need to provide
expertise to explain climate change science and economics so that those affected
by climate change can make informed decisions.
117
And in international
negotiations, all nations have a right to competent expertise to inform decision
makers on complex scientific and economic issues.118 For this reason, developed
nations should provide funds to support technical experts to assist those nations
who do not possess such expertise.119
In developing national policies, no nation may consider the implications of any
climate change policy to itself alone. To do so would violate the rights of those who
may be harmed. For this reason, when developing national climate change policies,
nations must consult with, and consider the interests of, persons who may be
harmed that live outside their jurisdictions.120
3.4. Conclusion
Ethical implications of climate change are hugely complex but require urgent action.
Lyon Dahl has asserted these ethical issues are a consequence of the present selfcentered materialism of our economic paradigm and the world's present institutions
have failed to adequately address the problem.121 No politician has been willing to
sacrifice the short-term economic welfare of his or her country, even while agreeing
that sustainability is essential in the long term. 122 Furthermore, the deep social,
economic and political divisions within societies and between countries prevent
united action in the common interest.123 If a solution based on ethics is the answer,
then subsequent questions must inquire: 1) where can an ethical component be
located? And 2) how can this component be incorporated into international law and
policymaking?
The religious traditions of the world may offer a solution. Religions contain
guidance, principles and warnings, all of which throw considerable light on the
115
Ibid. Nations who formulate climate change policies have a duty to make climate policy options understandable to all those who
will be affected by their policies and to seek their participation in decision making.
116
Ibid.
117
For example, nations formulating climate policies based upon cost-benefit analysis must disaggregate harms and benefits so
that subgroups will understand how they will be affected.
118
Ibid.
119
Ibid.
120
Ibid.
121
Lyon Dahl “Climate Change and its Ethical Challenges” The Baha’i World 2005-2006 (Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, 2007) 157172.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
67
present global environment and development issues. Religion is understood by
many to possess an ethical foundation and some of the most fundamental ethical
principles of humanity stem from the faiths. For example, the golden rule: “Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you,” and the commandment of charity:
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Approximately 85 per cent of the world’s
population adheres to a religious or spiritual tradition and thus the capacity for moral
harmonisation is achievable. It is proposed therefore, that religion may provide the
ethical foundation by which to guide social and political change in the climate
change arena.
The following chapter will present religious voice as a significant contributor and
actor for climate change governance. The following questions will be addressed.
How can religion be seen as a source of political morality? What are the world’s
faiths attitudes towards climate change and what is each tradition doing to alleviate
the problem? Can faiths unite for the common goal of preserving the global
environment?
68
Religious Perspectives on Climate Change
Religion is a powerful force for ... preventing our common environment heritage from being
irretrievably lost. It offers wisdom, perspectives and insights in combination with principles
of fair play and justice which form one of the greatest resources available for protecting the
environment and saving posterity.1
4.1. Introduction
The preceding chapter discussed the importance of ethics for climate change
concerns. It concluded with a proposal stating religion has the capacity for moral
harmonisation and may provide the ethical foundation by which to guide social and
political change in the climate change arena. The purpose of this chapter is to further
advance this proposition. The predominant reasons why religion could be perceived
as a source of political morality are crucial to the discussion. Justification lies in such
matters as the sheer number of adherents, unity of purpose amongst religions,
sustainability practices that are assumed by religious groups, notions of justice,
reverence for nature and the high moral authority held by religious leaders. These
particular attributes represent a dimension not yet fully explored by policy-makers.
The respective perspectives on climate change of the five major world’s religions
(the Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions) and the myriad
interreligious initiatives worldwide illustrate the growing impetus by religions to unite
toward the common goal of protection of the global environment. However, defining
‘religion’ is complex as it comprises many differing systems and values, and no one
definition can satisfy all concerns. Therefore a general description for the purposes
of this dissertation will first be advanced.
4.2. Defining religion
Although it is one of the oldest human institutions, no single, authoritative definition
of religion exists. John A. Hutchinson, in his book Paths of Faith acknowledged this
difficulty when he wrote:2
Formal definitions of religion are as numerous, as various, and often as mutually conflicting
as there are students of religion. Often such definitions illustrate the oriental parable of the
blind men describing the elephant, each taking hold of part of the beast and defining the
whole in terms of this part. Like the elephant, religion is a large and complex phenomenon.
In this connection, some historians of religion question or reject the word religion as a
1
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) xiv.
2
John A Hutchinson Paths of Faith (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1981) 3-4.
69
distortion of the form of experience it seeks to communicate. Several of the world's major
languages lack any word that can be adequately translated as "religion." The common noun
religion imputes a unity or homogeneity of experience that many observers believe does not
exist.
The psychologist William James (1842 – 1910), in his Gifford Lectures on natural
religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901 – 1902, also struggled to accurately define
religion. He wrote:3
The warring gods and formulas of the various religions do indeed cancel each other, but
there is a certain uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet, based on an
uneasiness ... that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand [the solution to
which] is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with
the higher powers.
Nafziger has commented that although some may argue this generalisation is
historically and culturally biased, and should therefore be viewed in its turn-of-thecentury context, it does appear to form a shared feeling and concern about the
human condition. 4 According to James, idealistically, the positive experience of
deliverance from this anxiety helps verify religious belief. James concludes that this
kind of shared religious experience demonstrates “that we can experience union
with something larger than ourselves and in that union find the greatest peace. ...All
that the facts require is that the power should be both other and larger than our
conscious selves.” 5 Thus, James responds, “religion is the feelings, acts, and
experiences of individual men in their solitude; so far as they apprehend themselves
to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.”6
Emile Durkheim, who offered the classic functionalist definition, stated: "A
religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is
to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one
single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." 7 His
definition was based on the distinction between sacred and profane. As far as
Durkheim was concerned, it has nothing to do with holiness, goodness or
supernatural characteristics. Anything can be sacred in a given society, provided
only that it is not profane, and vice versa. The point to this distinction is to offer a
representation for society as a whole. Religion is thus the symbolization of the whole
3
William James The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008) 368.
James A R Nafziger “The Functions of Religion in the International Legal System” in Religion and International Law Mark W
Janis and Carolyn Evans (eds) (Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, 1999) 157.
5
William James The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008) 380.
6
Ibid, 31.
7
Emile Durkheim The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (6th edition) (Translated by Joseph Ward Swain) (George Allen and
Unwin Ltd, London, 1968) 47.
4
70
of the social body – defined by its social function rather than by any distinctively
religious content.8
For the purposes of this thesis religion is not termed in any particular way, as
indeed it cannot be definitively defined. William James voiced this succinctly when
he stated: “Let us not fall immediately into a one-sided view of our subject, but let
us rather admit freely at the outset that we may very likely find no one essence, but
many characters which may alternately be equally important in religion.” 9 It is
through these ‘many characters’ that we may derive a common base of values and
norms of conduct pertaining to the environment. Christopher Weeramantry, in his
book Tread Lightly on the Earth has stated: ‘What is important in the current crisis
faced by all humanity is the realisation that there are numerous goals, values,
aspirations and norms of conduct which are common to all of humanity and that on
these fundamentals, the teachings of all religions coalesce. What unites the
religions is immensely more important than what divides them.’10
So what might a common base of values and norms of conduct consist of? Hans
Kung, through his Global Ethics Project, has stated there are five principles manifest
within many of the world’s religions.11 Perhaps the most important principle is the
Golden Rule which is found and has been sustained by many religions and ethical
traditions for thousands of years: What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do
to others.12 Stated in positive terms this would read: What you wish done to yourself,
do to others. Kung states this should be the irrevocable, unconditional norm for all
areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations and religions. 13 The
four ethical maxims – which can be found with Patanjali, the founder of Yoga, as
well as the Buddhist Canon, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and in the
Qur’an – can also be placed in positive terms and utilised as a common base of
values and norms of conduct. These maxims include (1) Have respect for life; (2)
Speak and act truthfully; (3) Deal honestly and fairly; (4) Respect and love one
another.14 Although these values are of a more general nature – they would be
essential starting points for any set of ethics regarding the environment. 15
The Earth Charter provides another example of a common base of values and
norms found within religions. Many religious leaders from diverse traditions
8
William E Arnal in Guide to the Study of Religion (Part 1 Definition) Willi Braun and Russell T McCutcheon eds (T & T Clark,
New York, 2000) 25.
9
William James The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008) 28.
10
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) xv.
11
“What is a Global Ethic?” Available online at http://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0a_was-ist-weltethos/0a-00einleitung/0a-00-was-ist-weltethos.php.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Refer Chapter 4.5.5 and Appendix C for more detailed information and the full text of the Global Ethic.
71
participated in the consultation and drafting process of the Earth Charter throughout
the decade-long, cross-cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values.16
The Charter itself sets out general ethical principles and strategic guidelines for
building a just, sustainable and peaceful world. 17 The text affirms many values that
are fundamental to the great religious traditions, and include compassion, love,
justice, care for the poor, environmental conservation, and peace. 18 In addition to
its ethical principles, the Earth Charter recognises the importance of the spiritual
dimension of life and notes several generally shared spiritual values. For example,
the Preamble highlights “that when basic needs have been met, human
development is primarily about being more, not having more.” It affirms the values
of “reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility
regarding the human place in nature.”19
In relation to specifically environmental values and norms, Tucker and Grim have
stated that most of the world’s religions hold common values pertaining to the
natural world. The Harvard Project (a ten-part conference series on World Religions
and Ecology) held at the Harvard Center for the study of World Religions from 1996
to 1998, identified seven common values. 20 These include reverence, respect,
reciprocity, restraint, redistribution, responsibility and restoration. 21 Although there
are variations in interpretation within and between religions regarding these values,
Tucker and Grim consider religions to be moving toward a richer understanding of
both their cosmological orientation and ethical obligations. 22 They suggest that as
the shift toward environmental concerns progresses, religions are calling for
“reverence for the Earth and its profound ecological processes, respect for Earth’s
myriad species and an extension of ethics to include all life forms, reciprocity in
relation to both humans and nature, restraint in the use of natural resources
combined with support for effective alternative technologies, a more equitable
redistribution of economic opportunities, the acknowledgment of human
responsibility for the continuity of life, and restoration of both humans and
ecosystems for the flourishing of life.” 23
The above examples portray a conscious effort by many religions toward a more
holistic orientation – thus expressing a capacity for progression and change for
contemporary concerns. Tucker has stated that religion has always both effected
“The Earth Charter and Religion” Statements on Controversial Issues (Earth Charter International, 2008). Found online at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/The%20Earth%20Charter%20and%20Religion.pdf.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid. Refer Chapter 4.5.6 and Appendix F for more detailed information and the full text of the Earth Charter.
20
Grim John & Tucker Mary Evelyn Ecology and Religion (Island Press, Washington DC, 2014) p 8.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
16
72
change and been affected by change in response to intellectual, political, cultural,
social, and economic forces.24 She states that in light of this, religions may more
accurately be described as religious processes rather than simply as preservers of
traditions. 25 “If this is the case”, she states, “then perhaps the ‘process’ can be
creatively guided in response to the environmental crisis we are now facing.” 26
Tucker has suggested that there have been three major stages of the world’s
religions associated with the advancement of civilisation. These stages are
categorized below:27
(1) Classical – this was the era of the emergence of the major world religions and
philosophy in the first Axial Age in the sixth century before the Common Era.28 Many
creative spiritual leaders, such as Confucius and Lao Tzu in East Asia, Buddha and
the Upanishadic seers in South Asia, the Hebrew prophets of West Asia, and the
pre-Socratic philosophers in Greece flourished in this period.29
(2) Medieval – this was the era of new religious frameworks that were often the result
of dialogue with other religious or philosophical traditions. For example, the recovery
of the Aristotelian philosophical tradition by the medieval Christian scholastics, such
as Thomas Aquinas, or the rise of Neo-Confucianism in China and the synthesis of
Zhu Xi, partly in response to Buddhism and Daoism.30
(3) Modern – this era consists of the last five hundred years. Within the modern era are
the distinct revolutions that have helped to shape our world today.31 For example:
(a) the religious revolution of the sixteenth-century Reformation – which initiated a
major challenge to the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church, to its orthodox
teachings, and to the role of individuals in interpreting scripture and seeking
personal salvation;32
(b) The scientific revolution of the seventeenth century – religious cosmologies were
severally called into question. The separation of reason and faith that began in the
medieval period became more pronounced.33 (This has been further exacerbated
by the emergence in the nineteenth century of the Darwinian theory of evolution,
which religions are still trying to absorb).
24
Mary Evelyn Tucker Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Carus Publishing Company, Illinois, 2003) 12.
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid, 12-13.
28
In 1949, Karl Jaspers, the German psychologist and philosopher, published The Origin and Goal of History (Greenwood Press
Reprint, 1977), and coined the term the Axial Age to describe the period from 800 BCE to 200 BCE. Jaspers opined similarly
revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India and the Occident. He saw striking similarities without any obvious direct
transmission of ideas from one region to the other. Jaspers argued that during the Axial Age "the spiritual foundations of
humanity were laid simultaneously and independently... And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today.”
29
Mary Evelyn Tucker Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Carus Publishing Company, Illinois, 2003) 14.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid, 14-16.
33
Ibid.
25
73
(c) the political revolution of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment – new notions of
reason, individualism, and freedom emerged along with fresh concepts of social
contract, the role of law, and the desirability of democratic processes;34
(d) The economic revolution of nineteenth-century industrialisation;35
(e) The social revolution of twentieth-century human rights – which arose out of two
world wars and the postcolonial era. It reaffirmed a sense of dignity of individuals
regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference;36 and finally,
(f) The
ongoing
ecological
revolution
of
twentieth-and
twenty-first-century
environmental movements. (It must be noted, however, that the individual human
rights intrepidly gained during the social revolution have not yet permeated through
to include community responsibilities to other persons, other species, or the planet
as a whole.)37
“In each of these eras”, states Tucker, “the religious traditions developed
significant new schools of thought and practice in response to challenges from
within as well as to pressures from without”.38 Tucker further states some scholars
of religion would describe the present era as a fourth stage categorized as
“postmodernism”.39 Within this framework, there are calls to move beyond outdated
practices. This fourth stage presents an opportunity for a positive move into
religion’s ecological phase. As the concepts of sustainability of life on Earth and the
viability of our species give rise to some urgency in the ecological revolution, it also
creates opportunities for new religious thought and for creative practical efforts to
come to light. 40 This is an important opportunity, especially equipped with the
knowledge that approximately 85 per cent of the world’s population adheres to one
religion or another (this figure is nearing six billion individuals as diagram 1
illustrates).41
34
Ibid.
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid, 16.
38
Ibid, 13.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
According to the U.S Census Bureau, the world population on November 7, 2012 was approximately 7,050,554,589.
35
74
Diagram 1: MAJOR RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD RANKED BY NUMBER OF ADHERENTS 42
1.
Christianity: 2.1 billion
2.
Islam: 1.5 billion
3.
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist:
1.1 billion
4.
Hinduism: 900 million
5.
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6.
Buddhism: 376 million
7.
Primal-indigenous: 300 million
8.
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100
million
9.
Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha'i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand
4.3. Religion as a source of political morality
Over the past several decades, academics and scientists alike have spoken out
regarding the positive influence religions possess, particularly when involved in
specific social issues. For example, in a 1990 appeal by scientists to the world
religious community, the scientists asked for commitment in word and deed to
preserve the environment of the Earth, as ‘the historical record makes clear that
religious teachings, example, and leadership are powerfully able to influence
personal conduct and commitment’.43 In 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists’
‘warning to humanity’ extended a specific invitation to several groups, including
religious leaders, to embrace a new environmental ethic sufficient to ‘motivate a
great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and
reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.’44 (Refer Appendix B).
42
Source: Adherents.com website <http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html>. Sizes shown are approximate
estimates only. The adherent counts presented in the list are current estimates of the number of people who have at least a
minimal level of self-identification as adherents of the religion. Levels of identification as adherents vary within all groups. These
numbers tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates. Valid arguments can be made for different figures, but if
the same criteria are used for all groups, the relative order should be the same.
43
Carl Sagan Guest comment: “Preserving and Cherishing the Earth – An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science and Religion”
Am J Phys 58:615-617.
44
Union of Concerned Scientists - World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity (UCS, Cambridge, MA, 1992).
75
Tony Juniper, special adviser to the Prince of Wales' Rainforests Project and former
executive director of Friends of the Earth, likewise emphasized the important role
that religion may play:45
Scientific rationalism gave rise to good science, which in turn gave rise to strong political
arguments for cleaning up the environment. Purely scientific rationalism cannot change our
fundamental understanding of who we are and how we should live. Religion and science
must work together to bring about a fundamental transformation in our relationship to the
world. This kind of change needs a spiritual foundation.”
Whilst speaking to a group of religious leaders, James Speth, a former
administrator of the United Nations Development Programme and chair of the UN
Development Group, stated:46
“Thirty years ago, I thought that with enough good science, we would be able to solve the
environmental crisis. I was wrong. I used to think the greatest problems threatening the
planet were species extinction, pollution and climate change. I was wrong there too. I now
believe that the greatest problems are pride, apathy and greed. And for that we need a
spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. We need
your help.”
Carl Safina, a prominent ecologist and marine conservationist has also
proclaimed: “The world doesn’t listen to just scientists. Although science tells us the
facts, the solutions are moral solutions. And people don’t look to science for
morality. They look to religion.”47
The importance of religion for environmental concerns lies in such notions as
sheer numbers of adherents, unity of purpose amongst religions, sustainability
practices that are already underway by religious groups, notions of justice, and
reverence for nature. Significance also lies in the fact that religious leaders
command high moral authority and even a seemingly simple act of story-telling can
become a means of communicating strong environmental messages. These
particular attributes represent a dimension not yet fully explored by policy-makers
(i.e. an ethical dimension that involves changing mindsets about how we live rather
than simply living a life that serves mostly narrow self-interests). The cultural
historian, Thomas Berry illustrates this idea best when he stated that biblical ethics
World’s Major Religions Present Action Plans on Environment (Baha’i World News Service) Baha’i website available online at
http://news.bahai.org/story/736 .
46
Rabbi Julian Sinclair Sally Bingham’s “Love God, Heal Earth”: A Review Jewish Climate Initiative, June, 2009 available online
at http://climateofchange.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/sally-binghams-love-god-heal-the-earth-a-review-by-rabbi-julian-sinclair/ .
47
Courtney Woo (quoting Ken Wilson) Religion Rejuvenates Environmentalism The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
June 2009 available online at http://unc.news21.com/index.php/stories/rel.html.
45
76
requires us to live “knowingly, lovingly, skillfully, reverently” rather than “ignorantly,
greedily, clumsily, destructively.”48
These attributes may seem far removed from the world of economics, science,
or law but they are equally as important. Law itself is perceived as very black and
white and current policies and discussions are therefore based on facts and figures
from the scientific, technological, economic and political arenas. While these arenas
remain essential to policy-making, facts and figures may not necessarily help in
changing people’s attitudes to climate change issues whereas a value-laden or
moral imperative may do so. Most importantly, however, is that a growing
awareness of issues such as global climate change may mean a human readiness
to accept major changes in societal course.
The next section discusses these individual attributes. It then points to the World
Council of Churches as an excellent example of how religious communities have
responded to climate change by manifesting the power of the dimensions of
religious affirmation and morality as identified above.
4.3.1. Numbers of adherents
One of the first and foremost attributes religion can offer is sheer numbers of
adherents (as illustrated in diagram 1 above). Possessing such a large global
membership, it has the potential to create a considerable impact in the global effort
to curb climate change.49 Gary Gardner states that degrees of adherence among
the billions of religious people vary greatly, as does the readiness of adherents to
translate their faith into political action or lifestyle choices.50 And many believers
within the same religion, he says, may interpret their faith in conflicting ways, leading
them to act at cross-purposes. 51 Even so, the sheer numbers are so large that
mobilising even a fraction of adherents to the cause of building a just and
environmentally healthy society could advance the sustainability agenda
dramatically. Adding non-religious but spiritually-minded people to the total
increases the potential for influence even more. 52 Gardner also remarks that
influence stemming from having a large number of followers is further enhanced by
the geographic concentration of many religions. This increases their ability to make
48
Roger S Gottlieb This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (Routledge, New York, 2004) 573.
Although data are estimates, roughly 85 per cent of people on the planet belong to one of 10,000 or so religions, and 150 or so
of these faith traditions have at least a million followers each. Adherents of the three largest traditions – Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism – account for about two-thirds of the global population today. Another 20 per cent of the world’s people subscribe to
the remaining religions, and about 16 per cent are non-religious. This information is based on the following: Adherents,
www.adherents.com/Religions_by_Adherents.html; population data from US Census Bureau, International Data Base,
www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html.
50
Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York,
2006) 49.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid, 50.
49
77
mass appeals and facilitate action.53 For example, Christians form the majority of
the population in 120 countries. Muslims form the majority in 45 countries, and
Buddhists in 10.54
The peaceful East German revolution of 1989 is one example of the profound
political changes numbers of religious adherents can effect. It has been dubbed a
“Protestant revolution” because of the prominent role played by church members in
steering the democracy movement to success. Werner Schulz, a German politician
and member of the European Parliament, stated: “the peaceful revolution was, at
its core, also a Protestant revolution... Its pioneering motto ‘no violence’ was the
essence of the Sermon on the Mount, the most revolutionary passage in the
Gospel... Protestant churches were base camps of this revolution....” 55
Robert Goeckel, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the State
University of New York at Geneseo, has similarly stated the Evangelical-Lutheran
Church has long symbolised a key element in civil society in the German Democratic
Republic (GDR) and has been a major actor in political change. 56 Despite the
traditional political abstinence of Lutherans, the church had become more critical of
the state since the Hitler experience and this proved to be a crucial permissive factor
in causing the revolution. 57 In 1988 church leadership began to call for change,
arguing that “even the GDR cannot escape the need for glasnost.” 58 It was this
critical role played by church leaders and activist pastors that led to the local
churches evolving as the cradle of the revolution.
One particular example is the Nikolai church in Leipzig which rose to national
fame with the Monday Demonstrations (Montagsdemonstrationen). These mass
demonstrations were a series of peaceful political protests against the authoritarian
government of the GDR, and they occurred on thirteen consecutive Mondays
between September 25, and December 18, 1989.
59
The demonstrations
commenced in Leipzig but soon spread to other cities. Safe in the knowledge that
the Lutheran Church supported their resistance, many dissatisfied East German
citizens gathered outside the church, and non-violent demonstrations began in
order to express their demands for political liberalisation, open borders, and, toward
the end of the cycle, German unification.60 Numbers of dissatisfied citizens grew by
53
Ibid.
Religious adherence statistics from Adherents.com, “Predominant Religions” available online at
http://www.adherents.com/adh_predom.html.
55
Tom Heneghan “Some East German Protestants Feel Overlooked as Wall Recalled” FaithWorld: Religion, Faith and Ethics at
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/06/some-east-german-protestants-feel-overlooked-as-wall-recalled/.
56
Robert Goeckel “The Evangelical-Lutheran Church and the East German Revolution” Research Paper available online at
http://www.georgefox.edu/.../Goeckel_Evangelical_articles_previous.pdf.
57
Ibid.
58
Glasnost was a policy that committed the government to greater accountability, openness, discussion and freer disclosure of
information than previously.
59
Susanne Lohmann “The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 198991” World Politics 47 (October 1994) 42.
60
Ibid.
54
78
the week, until, on 16 October 1989, the numbers had grown to 320,000. 61 The
pressure this created led to the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, and marked
the imminent fall of the socialist GDR regime.62 As a key element of civil society the
institutional church had provided leadership to the opposition and mediation among
the political forces in the revolutionary context and had been a key factor in political
and social change.63
The East German Revolution is similarly valuable in portraying the importance
of the church in environmental matters, and specifically for aiding development of
the German Green movement. The revolution of 1989 possessed a strong
environmental component and for good reason. By the 1970’s and 1980’s, the GDR
was mining more coal than any other country in the world, including the USSR, and
it had poured the toxic by-products of the extraction onto the ground, killing all
vegetation and poisoning the groundwater.64 From the antiquated power plants, the
GDR emitted 5.6 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide each year. The resulting acid rain
killed 9000 lakes, killed or damaged 37 per cent of East German forests, lowered
agricultural production, and damaged many buildings and monuments around the
country.65 East German chemical plants, lacking in pollution controls and even basic
repairs, discharged countless amounts of poisonous and hazardous waste into the
rivers, killing fauna and flora and causing extensive damage to bridges and other
constructions along the banks.66 Buna, the chemical plant in Halle, dumped twenty
kilograms of mercury into the Saale River each day. The lack of sewage and water
treatment plants, unregulated hazardous waste dumps, and chemical-intensive
agriculture caused further problems.67
With increasing despondency over the ever-increasing pollution and destruction
of the environment, grass-roots groups began to emerge with the assistance of the
East German Protestant Church. On theological grounds, exploitation of the
environment was seen as a sin against the Creation of God. Man’s stewardship role
on earth – his responsibility to respect and love God’s Creation – was cited by the
church in opposing environmental degradation. 68 For example, in response to a
letter in 1971 from a group of theologians, church leaders in Saxony-Magdeburg
turned to the Ecclesiastical Research Center in Wittenberg (Kirchliches
Forschungsheim [KFH]), established in 1927 to explore Christianity's relationship to
nature, and allocated it the task of defining the theological aspects of environmental
61
Ibid.
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
Merrill E Jones “Origins of the East German Environmental Movement” German Studies Review, Vol 16, No 2 (May, 1993) 236.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid, 240.
62
79
matters.69 This was to be the initial spark of organized environmental concern in the
German Democratic Republic.
The KFH also played a role at the grass-roots level. Lectures and a travelling
exhibition shown in churches across the country ignited the formation of numerous
environmental groups.70 And in 1984, the environment was selected by the federal
synod as the "theme of the year". The council's final resolution in September of that
year showed solid support for church engagement in environmental issues:71
Concern for Creation has been shown in local, regional, and ecumenical circles. We are
thankful for their activities, their courage, and their creativity. We would like to encourage
them to continue their work undeterred. But responsibility for Creation cannot be an issue of
importance only in local groups; rather, it must represent a continuous effort on the part of
the whole Church. It should be undertaken in sermons, in teaching, in training church
workers, and in our lifestyles. ... We ask church leaders to support parishes with
[environmental] goals and to encourage them to consult with church leaders about such
issues.
As a consequence of taking on the role of protector, supporter, activist, and forum
for dialogue, the East German Protestant Church thus played a prominent role in
promoting democracy and environmental concerns and proves to illustrate the
enormous possibilities for societal change that religious numbers can achieve – a
valuable and essential asset for the current fight against climate change.
4.3.2. Unity of purpose
As described above, environmental concern can be a natural progression of
churches, synagogues, mosques, and sanghas on-going concern for human health,
well-being, and social justice. It is this common purpose which helps to explain how
religions from widely different global regions and with widely divergent beliefs and
theologies can work together on climate justice. Christopher Weeramantry has
stated, “Whereas organised religions once tended to shut out perspectives of the
wisdom of other religions, today’s multicultural world has opened up a dialogue
between the religions whereby they reach out to each other to discuss the core
values they teach in common.” 72 Religions and religious groups with widely
divergent beliefs and theologies are already working together on climate justice,
which includes considering global warming’s impact on the poor and less fortunate.
For example, in 1986, His Royal Highness Prince Philip (then President of World
69
Ibid.
Ibid, 241.
71
Ibid, 242 as quoted from Streiflichter XXIX (November 1984).
72
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 11.
70
80
Wildlife Fund International (WWF)) sent out an invitation to the five leaders of the
five major world religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism –
to meet for a discussion on how the faiths could help save the natural world.73 The
invitation aptly stated: “Come, proud of your own tradition, but humble enough to
learn from others”. The meeting was fittingly held in Assisi, Italy, the birthplace of
St. Francis, the Catholic saint of ecology.74 The reasons for its importance were
spelt out by Prince Philip in his opening speech:75
We came to Assisi to find vision and hope: vision to discover a new and caring relationship
with the rest of the living world, and hope that the destruction of nature can be stopped
before all is wasted and gone. I believe that today, in this famous shrine of the saint of
ecology, a new and powerful alliance has been forged between the forces of religion and
the forces of conservation. I am convinced that secular conservation has learned to see the
problems of the natural world from a different perspective, and I hope and believe that the
spiritual leaders have learned that the natural world of creation cannot be saved without their
active involvement. Neither can ever be the same again.
The Uppsala Interfaith Climate Summit provides a more recent example of interfaith
unity. In 2008, the Archbishop of the Church of Sweden invited a group of
internationally recognised opinion-makers from different faiths and continents to a
climate summit in Uppsala.76 The purpose of the summit, among others, was to
communicate an urgent, hopeful, ethical-religious message to the global community
about the need to slow down global warming. 77 Religious leaders affirmed the
climate question as a deep spiritual issue, and therefore questioned why the
responsibility for attempting to solve the crisis should be placed in the hands of
politicians alone. Dr He Xiaoxin, from the Alliance of Religions and Conservation
(ARC) stated, “I believe the Uppsala Manifesto is an important indication of the
potential role faiths can play in reminding Government that they do not stand alone
on the issues of climate change and the environment.”
Most recently, the Lambeth Interfaith Forum was held at Lambeth Palace in
London. The seminar was held in March 2011 and attended by religious and political
leaders and representatives of all major faiths.78 The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr
Rowan Williams, the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks and Lord Marland, the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Alliance of Religions and Conservation – History” available online at
http://www.arcworld.org/about.asp?pageID=2.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Uppsala Manifesto Promises Faith Action on Climate Issues” available online at
http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=283.
77
Ibid.
78
Church of England “Carbon Pledges at Lambeth Interfaith Forum” March 2011, available online at
http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2011/03/carbon-pledges-at-lambeth-interfaith-forum.aspx.
73
81
Change all supported the event sponsored by the British Council. 79 Lord Marland
expressed his support when he stated: “I really applaud the different faiths working
together to find practical ways of tackling climate change at national and community
level. Stewardship of Creation, concern for the world’s poor and a responsibility to
safeguard natural resources for future generations are moral and spiritual
obligations found at the heart of all the major faiths. They are also at the heart of
the climate change debate.”80 Lord Marland stated that people of faith have much
to contribute by leading by example, encouraging behaviour change and by placing
sustainability at the centre of individual’s lives. He also believed that religion plays
a crucial role in encouraging religious and political leaders around the world to push
harder to reach a binding agreement to limit global carbon emissions.81
4.3.3. Sustainable practices
Over the past several decades, engagement on environmental sustainability
matters by religions and spiritual traditions has grown. Many religions are becoming
increasingly aware of their potential for environmental good, and some are taking
action to introduce sustainable practices. Below are several examples of the
numerous practices currently underway.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople (also known as the
“Green Patriarch”), leader of more than three hundred million Orthodox Christians,
founded Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) in 1988 to advance religious
and scientific dialogue around the environmental problems of major rivers and
seas. 82 RSE has organised shipboard symposia for scientists, religious leaders,
scholars, journalists, and policymakers to study the problems of the Aegean, Black,
Adriatic, and Baltic Seas; the Danube, Amazon, and Mississippi Rivers; and the
Arctic Ocean.83 Travelling down these waterways, the participants literally follow
pollution from its source to its point of impact. Thus, these journeys have highlighted
the interconnectedness of the world’s waters and all its ecosystems, demonstrating
the destructive ripples human actions can send through space and time. 84 By
bringing participants to the places where environmental problems are most acute
and focusing on practical remedies rather than theoretical discussions, RSE
symposia have inspired positive change through collective action.85 In addition, the
79
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
82
Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) available online at http://www.rsesymposia.org.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
85
Ibid.
80
81
82
symposia have generated initiatives for education, co-operation, and networkbuilding among local communities and policymakers.86
The Living Churchyards and Cemetery project in the United Kingdom is one
example of sustainable land use.87 More than 6000 churchyards – the plots of land
that sit adjacent to churches and often used as burial grounds – are now managed
as “sacred ecosystems,” without pesticides and with infrequent mowing, in order to
provide habitat for birds, reptiles, and insects. 88 The yards are respected as
historical, cultural, and ecological sites that provide for the needs of mourners and
wildlife alike.89
Interfaith Power and Light (IPL), an initiative of the San Francisco-based
Regeneration Project, helps U.S. faith communities green their buildings, conserve
energy, educate about energy and climate, and advocate for climate and energy
policies at the state and federal level. Led by Reverend Sally Bingham, an Episcopal
priest, IPL is now active in twenty-nine states and works with ten thousand
congregations. 90 IPL congregations often take steps to green their facilities. For
example, Michigan IPL reported in 2006 that its congregations’ efficiency
improvements and renewable energy choices had saved more than US$775,000
and eliminated the same amount of pollution as planting 612 hectares of forest or
removing 960 cars from the road.91
In 2009, at Windsor Castle, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC)
and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) joined with thirty-one faith
traditions to launch and celebrate their Long Term Commitments for a Living
Planet. 92 Plans on the environment have been created by Baha’i, Buddhist,
Christian, Daoist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, and Sikh groups.93 Each of the
plans discusses wide and varied aspects of sustainable action: from buildings, trees,
and food, to education, theology and celebration.94
Also involved in long-term commitments is GreenFaith. 95 It is one of the oldest
religious-environmental organisations in the United States – made up of Christian,
Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, and Buddhist faiths. Its mission is to inspire, educate and
mobilise people of diverse religious backgrounds for environmental leadership. The
86
Ibid.
Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York,
2006) 77.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid 25. See also The Regeneration Project website available online at http://www.theregenerationproject.org.
91
Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York,
2006) 79 (taken from conversations the author had with Sally Bingham).
92
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “ARC-UN Long Term Commitments for a Living Planet” available online at
http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=47.
93
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “List of Faith Commitments Including 7 Year Plans” available online at
http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=497.
94
Ibid.
95
GreenFaith: Interfaith Partners for the Environment available online at http://greenfaith.org/.
87
83
group believes that protecting the earth is a religious value, and that environmental
stewardship is a moral responsibility. 96 In 2003, GreenFaith launched “Lighting the
Way”, which provided an opportunity for religious institutions in New Jersey to install
solar electric systems on their buildings at no upfront cost. Twenty-three institutions
participated – preventing over 8,536,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from
entering earth’s atmosphere over the next twenty years. 97 GreenFaith has also
introduced a sustainable food guide for religious institutions called “Repairing
Eden.”98
Although not all religions and not all denominations embrace environmental
protection or take the responsibility of caring for Creation seriously, it does appear
that religious engagement is increasing. By greening their activities and uncovering
or re-emphasizing the green dimensions of sacred texts, religious and spiritual
groups are helping to create sustainable cultures.
4.3.4. Notions of justice
Throughout history, justice as the fair and just distribution of opportunities,
responsibilities and burdens has been a key value in all ethical systems and
societies. It is the way in which it is interpreted, or the importance it is given in
relation to other values that varies immensely.99 Climate justice implies just and fair
instruments, decisions, actions, sharing of the burden and accountability in order to
prevent, mitigate and adapt to climate change.100 The notion of justice from within a
religious perspective derives from a sense of responsibility to care for Creation. And
for some religious groups, justice is at the heart of their environmental concerns.
(Refer to 4.3.9 below - a Case Study on the World Council of Churches (WCC)
which considers justice to be the main concern in climate change issues).
4.3.5. Reverence for nature
The world’s religions view the environment in different ways, but as global
degradation becomes ever more evident, there is increasing attention paid to the
natural world. The planetary scale of the crisis has awakened a process that Mary
Evelyn Tucker of the Forum on Religion and Ecology describes as the retrieval, reevaluation, and reconstruction of religious wisdom regarding human interaction with
the natural world.101 To put it in other words, religious traditions are finding in their
96
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
99
Christoph Stueckelberger “Who Dies First? Who is Sacrificed First? Ethical Aspects of Climate Justice” in God, Creation and
Climate Change: Spiritual and Ethical Perspectives (Lutheran University Press, Minneapolis, 2009) 48.
100
Ibid.
101
Mary Evelyn Tucker Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Open Court, Chicago, 2002) 36-54.
97
98
84
own annals of wisdom ancient teachings that may have been overlooked, or that
are understood more profoundly in the light of the global environmental crisis. 102
Tucker’s analysis suggests that religions are more adaptable than they are
commonly perceived to be.103
Tucker and Grim give examples of the adaptability of differing religions in their
foreword to Hinduism and Ecology104. They begin by stating that in the three western
monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, morality has traditionally
been human-focused, with nature being of secondary importance and with God
transcending the natural world. Thus, the natural world can be seen as a set of
resources for human use, a perspective that some observers blame for the wasteful
and destructive development of the past two centuries.105 Yet scholars in each of
these traditions find substantial grounds for building a strong environmental ethic.
The Judaic concept of a covenant or legal agreement between God and humanity,
for example, can be extended to all of creation. The Christian emphases on
sacrament and incarnation are seen as lenses through which the entire natural
world can be viewed as sacred. And the Islamic concept of vice-regency teaches
that the natural world is not owned by humans but is given to them in trust – a trust
that implies certain responsibilities to preserve the balance of creation. 106
Tucker and Grim state that both Hinduism and Buddhism in South Asia contain
teachings concerning the natural world that are arguably in conflict. 107 Some
scholars emphasize the illusory nature of the material world and the desirability of
escaping suffering by turning to a timeless world of spirit (in the case of Hinduism)
or by seeking release in nirvana (in the case of some meditative schools of
Buddhism).108 This other-worldly orientation, some scholars argue, minimizes the
importance of environmental degradation.109 On the other hand, both religions place
great emphasis on correct conduct and on fulfillment of duty, which often includes
obligations to environmental preservation. Thus, Hindus regard rivers as sacred
and, in the concept of lilo, the creative manifestation of the divine. Meanwhile,
Buddhist environmentalists often stress the importance of trees in the life of the
Buddha, and “socially engaged” Buddhism in Asia and the United States is active in
environmental protection, especially of forests.110
Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York,
2006) 69.
103
Ibid.
104
Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim “Series Foreword” in Christopher Key Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker Hinduism and
Ecology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2000) pp xxv-xxvii.
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
102
85
The East Asian traditions of Confucianism and Daoism seamlessly link the
divine, human, and natural worlds. 111 The divine is not seen as transcendent;
instead the Earth’s richness is seen as continuously unfolding through nature’s
movements across the seasons and through human workings in the cycles of
agriculture. This organic worldview is centred on the concept of ch’i, the dynamic,
material force that infuses the natural and human worlds, unifying matter and spirit.
Confucianists and Daoists seek to live in harmony with nature and with other human
beings, while paying attention to the movements of the Dao, the Way.112 Despite
the affinity of these traditions with an environmental ethic, however, deforestation,
pollution, and other forms of degradation have become widespread in contemporary
East Asia due to many factors, including rapid industrialisation and the decline of
traditional values in the last fifty years with the spread of Communism.113
Although the environment is still not a major concern across an entire religion or
denomination, the interest is rapidly growing with areas of activity within all of the
world’s major religions, as they begin to reassess their understanding of humans
and the environment, and as they begin to give the environment a prominent place
in their worldviews.114
4.3.6. Key leadership roles in environmental issues
As has been evidenced in earlier discussions, religious leaders have begun to play
key leadership roles on the environmental stage. Roger Gottlieb has suggested that
it is one of the great accomplishments of the world’s religious leaders that ecological
responsibility has recently become a key topic of discussion.115 For example, in a
statement in 1997, Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and
Ecumenical Patriarch stated:116
To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin ... to cause species to become extinct
and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation ... to degrade the integrity of the
Earth by causing changes in its climate, stripping the Earth of its natural forests, or
destroying its wetlands ... to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life with
poisonous substances – these are sins.
The fact that Bartholomew’s powerful theological language directly contradicts any
presupposition that the environmental crisis is merely a technical problem or a
111
Ibid.
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York,
2006) 69.
115
Roger S Gottlieb “Religion and the Environment” in John Hinnells (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion 2nd ed
(Routledge, London, 2010) pp 492-508.
116
Ibid.
112
86
flawed policy is important. His assertion that environmental degradation is a sin puts
human relation to nature in the category of religious morality and, as such, is a direct
expansion of both religion and environmental concern.117
A similar expansion, asserts Gottlieb, can be found in important statements by
Catholic authorities, including Pope John Paul II. In his first year as Pope, John Paul
declared St Francis the patron saint of those concerned with the environment. 118
Over the next two decades a series of statements revealed two central principles:
first, that concern for the environment was now to take its place alongside other
Catholic social justice issues such as poverty, abortion, capital punishment, and
war. It had become essential to Catholic teaching to resist the cultural and political
failures which led to the environmental crisis. Second, that crisis is not defined solely
in terms of how it affects people.119
This discovery of a transcendent presence in creation, must lead us also to rediscover our
fraternity with the earth, to which we have been linked since creation (cf Gen 2:7). This very
goal was foreshadowed by the Old Testament in the Hebrew Jubilee, when the earth rested
and man gathered what the land spontaneously offered (cf Lev 25:11-12). If nature is not
violated and humiliated, it returns to being the sister of humanity.
This is not only a bold and non-human centred environmental declaration; it is also
a groundbreaking move for a religious tradition which for many centuries did its best
to destroy any religion which honoured the earth.120
While Buddhism has no central authority structure the way Catholicism does, it
does have some internationally recognised leaders. The Dalai Lama is the most
important of these. He has made many ecologically oriented pronouncements,
linking environmental problems to more comprehensive problems of greed and
attachment. 121 He has also proposed that Tibet be turned into an international
ecological refuge and criticized the Chinese government for un-ecological practices,
including the dumping of nuclear wastes in Tibet.122
These
examples
of
religious
leadership
and
the
declarations
and
pronouncements made do not as yet signify a huge change in citizen’s thinking
about environmental issues or how to solve them. However, it is significant that
religious authorities, who have the ear of billions of people, have embraced
environmentalism and are ready and willing to pass this knowledge on.123 A more
117
Ibid 497.
Ibid.
Ibid.
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid 498.
118
119
87
detailed discussion on how the world’s major religions relate to climate change
issues is elaborated in section 4.4.
4.3.7. Story-telling as an environmental awareness teaching tool
Martin Palmer, in Faith and Conservation, stated that all religions pass on their
messages and their ethos by telling stories.124 This, he reasoned, can be extended
to pass on messages about the environment and social development. Given that
humanity interprets the world through stories, Palmer is surprised that in the
environmental and developmental movements’ people rarely use stories but rely
instead on “dry statistics or facts with no context.” This can lead us, he states, to
miss the point of an activity and at its worst can even bring us to destroy the very
thing we seek to understand.125 This is where we can learn from the great religions.
For it is by telling and remembering traditional stories that the religions are often
most persuasive and positive in protecting the environment, by reminding people of
the right way of doing things and by promoting a greater sense of responsibility for
natural resources.
Palmer gives several examples of stories that demonstrate the importance, and
the possibilities, of story-telling:126
Muhammad and the River
One day, the prophet Muhammad was traveling from one town to the next with
his followers. They were just crossing a river when it became time for prayers.
Naturally they used the river to perform the ritual ablutions required before prayer.
However, the followers of the Prophet were astonished to see him enter the river
with a little bowl. This he filled with water and it was this water with which he
performed the ablutions. When asked why, surrounded by a whole river, he took so
little water to use; he said that just because there is plenty this does not give us the
right to waste or to take more than we really need.127
Krishna and the Serpent
This ancient legend tells that once upon a time, an evil serpent lived in the sacred
Yamuna River that flows across the centre of India and into the Ganges. The
serpent’s foul breath blasted the crops growing along the river and its polluting body
fouled the river, injuring all life. The people started to weep and the creatures of the
river started to cry out, and eventually their distress reached the ears of Lord
124
Martin Palmer with Victoria Finlay Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (The World Bank,
Washington DC, 2003) 50.
125
Ibid 51.
126
Ibid 51 – 52.
127
Ibid.
88
Krishna. He sped to the river and – after a dramatic three day battle – killed the
serpent and freed the waters and the people from its evil influence. Hindu
communities were able to draw upon this legend and use it to awaken local
awareness of the problem, when in the 1990’s the Yamuna was reaching dangerous
levels of pollution. The pollution was seen as the return of the evil serpent in a new
and uglier form and humanity was required to be the hands of Krishna in the battle
against the serpent.128
Stories such as the two examples above make it possible to envision how storytelling can have a much greater positive influence on people concerning
environmental issues than mere facts and figures that are far less easily understood.
And when coupled with the authority that religious teaching holds for many people,
stories have the potential to change lives and societies.
4.3.8. Physical and financial resources
Religions command vast physical and financial resources, with many of them having
assets far greater than many banks or multinational corporations. According to the
Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), religions “own some five per cent of
forests; are connected to more than half of schools; own and manage most of the
world’s tourist destinations ... and control some seven per cent of all financial
investments.”129 For example, the United Methodist Church in the United States has
holdings of around $70 billion. By comparison, the Church of England holds nearly
one hundred times this amount.130 In terms of buildings, the Catholic Church owns
approximately one million structures (including churches, monasteries, retreat
centres, schools, parish halls, sports facilities, publishing companies, media
centres, research centres, and universities). 131 And in countries such as Brazil,
Germany, and Spain, the Church runs the majority of the historic buildings – the
churches and cathedrals that are the very heart of the national tourism trade.132
Rabbi Daniel Sperber, on recognizing that we must all take full responsibility for
all our assets, stated that “we must become knowledgeable of what our investments
are actually doing, whether they are being used with harmful results, or whether we
can proactively harness them for the betterment of humanity.” While acknowledging
a single individual can have little effect, and therefore the challenge immense, he
continued: “To have real impact one must work in concert with others, and who
Ibid 52 – 53.
Alliance of Religions and Conservation website available online at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=51 .
130
Martin Palmer with Victoria Finlay Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (The World Bank,
Washington DC, 2003) 39.
131
Ibid 40.
132
Ibid 40.
128
129
89
better than the faith groups who control vast funds and share common ethical ideals,
and therefore constitute the logical partners for an alliance towards shared goals.” 133
The International Interfaith Investment Group (3iG) is a prime example of an
organisation ‘working in concert with others’. This interfaith organisation was
launched in 2005 through the efforts of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation
(ARC). It is a not-for-profit membership organisation whose mission is to contribute
to a just and sustainable society, by promoting faith-consistent investments in the
spirit of interfaith and international dialogue and cooperation.134
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), comprising nearly
three hundred organisations with collective assets totaling over US$100 billion,
remains the pioneer coalition of active shareowners who view the management of
their investments as a catalyst to promote justice and sustainability in the world. 135
ICCR members help shape corporate policy on a host of environmental, social and
economic justice concerns. KC Burton, Deputy Director of the ICCR, when laying
out his vision for the Center stated: “ICCR’s identity, what distinguishes us, is the
moral drive, the sense of social rightness, that is embedded in our faith practices
that find common ground around, it is right to care for one another, it is right to
protect this planet, it is right to further people’s well-being, and it is right for us to
work together in doing that.”136
4.3.9. A Case Study - World Council of Churches
The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a prominent example of how religious
organisations have responded to climate change by manifesting the power of many
of the dimensions of religious affirmation and morality as identified in sections 4.3.1
to 4.3.8. Many of these attributes are expressly located within the work of the WCC
and these have been categorised under similar headings below:

Numbers of adherents/Unity of purpose –
The WCC is the largest and most inclusive among the many organised
representations of the modern ecumenical movement and it brings together
349 Christian churches, denominations and church fellowships in more
than 110 countries and territories throughout the world. 137 It represents
over 560 million Christians and includes most of the world’s Orthodox
churches, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed churches,
133
Alliance of Religions and Conservation website available online at http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=90 .
The International Interfaith Investment Group (3iG) website available online at http://www.3ignet.org/about/index.html.
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) website available online at http://www.iccr.org/.
136
Ibid.
137
Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate
Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay
(Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 278.
134
135
90
as well as many United and Independent churches and some Evangelical
and Pentecostal churches.138
One important role of the WCC is to build networks and relationships
and enhance solidarity.139 The world’s churches are beginning to recognise
how climate change consequences are affecting the lives and livelihoods
of their communities.140 In an effort to respond to these challenges, they
are aiding in the development of resilient communities which are equipped
to adapt to climate change. 141 Churches of different denominations are
coming together to respond to the impacts of climate change and to
advocate for policies that respond to the needs and rights of vulnerable
populations, both at local and national levels.142

Key leadership roles in environmental issues –
In 1972, the WCC began to address growing environmental and social
challenges. At the fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC)
in Nairobi in 1975, there was a call to establish the conditions for a “just,
participatory, and sustainable [global] society.” 143 In 1979, a follow-up WCC
conference was held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on “Faith,
Science, and the Future.” The 1983 Vancouver Assembly of the WCC
revised the theme of the Nairobi conference to include “Justice, Peace, and
the Integrity of Creation.” The 1991 WCC Canberra conference expanded
on these ideas with the theme of the “Holy Spirit Renewing the Whole of
Creation.”144 After Canberra, the WCC theme for mission in society became
“Theology of Life.” This has invoked theological thought on environmental
destruction and social inequities resulting from economic globalization. In
1992, at the time of the UN Earth Summit in Rio, the WCC facilitated a
gathering of Christian leaders that issued a “Letter to the Churches,” calling
for attention to pressing eco-justice concerns: solidarity with other people
and all creatures; ecological sustainability; sufficiency as a standard of
distributive justice; and socially just participation in decisions for the
common good.145 Since this time, the WCC has attended all UN climate
change conferences.
138
Ibid.
Grace Ji-Sun Kim “Advocacy and Action on Climate Change: The World Council of Churches” Available online at
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/grace-jisun-kim/climate-changeadvocacy_b_5344044.html.
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A Grim “Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology” in Religion and
Ecology: Can the Climate Change? Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 2001, p 11.
144
Ibid.
145
Ibid.
139
91
Of particular significance is the WCC’s role within the UN. Created in
1948, the WCC was one of the first recognised nongovernmental
organisations with general consultative status at the United Nations,
through its Commission of the Churches on International Affairs. 146 The
General Secretariat of the WCC is based in Geneva, Switzerland, where
about 150 staff coordinate worldwide programs – including responsibility
for creation and interreligious dialogue and cooperation. 147 Other WCC
offices are based in Jerusalem and New York.
In September 2014 the WCC organised the Interfaith Climate Summit in
New York. It was held in advance of the UN Climate Summit and its
purpose was to show the extent of religious communities concern regarding
the current climate crisis and of how they accept scientific consensus that
portrays the consequences of climate change today and for the future. 148
The Summit particularly aimed at asking the international community to
effectively react to climate change and to call for a legally binding,
ambitious and fair treaty in Paris, 2015. Leaders from the Jewish, Muslim,
Hindu, Buddhist and Christian faiths, as well as representatives from
indigenous peoples, participated. Although interfaith meetings and
declarations have been coordinated in the past, the 2014 Summit
presented a real sense of urgency – with religious leaders acknowledging
the very small window of opportunity to act and thus calling for immediate
action by the international community. 149
In his message to the Summit, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
stated that: “each believer and each leader, each field and each discipline,
each institution and each individual must be touched by the call to change
our greedy ways and destructive habits” for the sake of climate justice.150

Notions of justice/Reverence for nature –
It is the overarching theme of justice and the care for creation that are at
the centre of WCC work on climate change issues. Its members
understanding of the implications of justice as it pertains to climate change
Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are responding to Climate
Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay
(Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 278.
147
Ibid, 279.
148
Charlotta Lomas “Religious communities are concerned about the climate” Interview with Guillermo Kerber of WCC. Available
online at http://www.dw.de/religious-communities-are-concerned-about-the-climate/a-17966092.
149
Ibid.
150
World Council of Churches Press Centre News, “To save the earth, all must change their ways, says Ecumenical Patriarch”.
Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/to-save-the-earth-all-must-change-their-ways-saysecumenical-patriarch.
146
92
was expressed in a statement to the high-level segment of COP3 in Kyoto
when the protocol was being drafted. The statement proclaimed: 151
(1) Justice means being held responsible for one’s actions. The rich of the
world, through promotion of the current economic model, have been and
continue to be responsible for the vast majority of emissions causing
human-produced climate change.
(2) Justice means being held accountable for promises you make. The rich
of the world have broken their Rio promise to stabilise emissions by 2000
at 1990 levels.
(3) Justice means being held responsible for the suffering you cause to
others. Small island states, millions of environmental refugees, and future
generations will suffer as a result of the callous exploitation of the earth’s
resources by the rich.
(4) Justice means being held accountable for abuse of power. Human
societies, particularly in the over-developed countries, are damaging the
environment through climate change with little respect for the inherent
worth of other species which we believe to be loved by God as we are.
(5) Justice means an equitable sharing of the Earth’s resources. Millions
of people lack the necessities for a decent quality of life. It is the height of
ignorance to propose that restrictive commitments be placed on the poor
to make up for the delinquencies of the rich. Over-consumption of the rich
and poverty of the poor must both be eliminated to ensure quality of life for
all.
(6) Justice demands truth.
The organisation first held a series of meetings in relation to
sustainability in the 1970s.152 This led to a process in the 1980s known as
Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC) which linked
environment degradation with justice issues. 153 The WCC has focused
directly on climate change since that time and has been present at every
UNFCCC annual conference.154 It has also increasingly worked with faith
groups outside of the Christian tradition on advocacy and action in
David G Hallman, WCC Climate Change Programme Coordinator, Climate Justice – the Role of Religion in Addressing Climate
Change World Climate Change Conference 2003, Moscow, Russion Federation, September 29 to October 3, 2003 available online
at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climatechange-water/world-climate-change-conference.html.
152
Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are responding to Climate
Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay
(Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 279.
153
Ibid.
154
Ibid.
151
93
response to climate change. 155 Examples of WCCs climate change and
global justice advocacy is illustrated in the table below.
Sample of WCC-involved activities at UNFCCC Conferences of the
Parties to show the consistent relationship expressed between climate
change and global justice156
155
156
COP Year and
location
Title of WCC statement
Other notes
2 1996 Geneva,
Switzerland
A Profoundly Ethical
and Spiritual Challenge
First WCC statement at
COP meeting.
3 1997 Kyoto,
Japan
A Matter of Justice: An
Interfaith Statement
Interfaith Climate
Change Celebration
was a major event
6 2000 The Hague,
Netherlands
The Earth’s
Atmosphere:
Responsible Caring and
Equitable Sharing for a
Global Commons. A
Justice Statement
Regarding Climate
Change
7 2001 Marrakech,
Morocco
The Role of Religions:
An Interfaith Statement
8 2002 New Delhi,
India
A Call to Action in
Solidarity with Victims
of Climate Change
9
The Earth Does Not
Belong to Us: We
Belong to the Earth –
an Ethics Statement
2003 Milan, Italy
10 2004 Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Moving beyond Kyoto
with Equity, Justice and
Solidarity
13 2007 Bali,
Indonesia
This Far and No
Further: Act Fast and
Act Now
14 2008 Poznan,
Poland
Faith and Feasibility:
Responsibly Searching
for a New Heaven and
a New Earth
15 2009
Copenhagen,
Denmark
A Sign of Hope for the
Future of the People of
Goodwill
Ibid.
Ibid, 287.
94
One-day colloquium
focused on Islamic and
Christian perspectives
on environment and
climate change.
Appendix included
Message on Occasion
of COP9 of the World
Conference on Religion
and Peace: Religions
for Peace.
Interfaith Celebration on
Climate Change held at
Nusa Dua International
Church.
Uppsala Interfaith
Climate Manifesto 2008.
Renew the Face of the
Earth: Faith-based
Approach to Climate
Justice side event co-
17 2011 Durban,
South Africa
Once More a Plea for
Immediate Action:
Climate Justice for All
organised by the WCC
and Caritas
Internationalis and cosponsored by several
national churches and
the Asian Muslim Action
Network. Countdown to
CO2penhagen: Time for
Climate Justice
international campaign
organised before COP
meetings.
African interfaith
statement Climate and
Sustainable Peace in
Africa. Interfaith side
event Climate Justice
and Food Security:
Moral, Ethical and
Spiritual Imperatives.
The UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties have not been the only target for
WCCs interfaith work on climate justice. Particularly after COP 15 in
Copenhagen, for example, new avenues were sought to advance the
climate justice agenda. 157 One such avenue was the Geneva Interfaith
Forum on Climate Change, Environment and Human Rights, created in
2010. The WCC was a founding member in conjunction with the Brahma
Kumaris World Spiritual University, the Centre Catholique International de
Geneve and the Indigenous Peoples Ancestral Spiritual Council. 158 The
mission statement reiterated that injustice is inherent in climate change and
it highlighted “vulnerable communities” that will face the most severe
consequences of climatic variation.159 It also declared that “climate justice
should be at the core of the Human Rights debate.”160
Such advocacy for climate justice is grounded in the affirmation of
churches and other religious organisations that climate change must be
addressed holistically - based on recognition of the interconnectedness of
the various dimensions of the climate crisis, including the environmental,
social, cultural and economic dimensions. 161

Financial resources –
Although the WCC has a relatively small investment portfolio compared to
many other institutions, it is very careful in how it manages these
157
Ibid, 289.
Ibid.
Ibid.
160
Ibid.
161
Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate
Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay
(Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 280.
158
159
95
investments. 162 WCC’s finance director, Elaine Dykes, states the WCC
holds 8.7 million Swiss Francs in short-term deposits and money-market
funds and the general ethical guidelines for investment have included
concern for a sustainable environment for future generations and for the
CO2 footprint of individuals and organisations.163 As of 2014, however, this
further included no direct investment in fossil fuel industries. 164 Dykes
further states that while the ethical investment guidelines apply to the WCC
only, they are seen as a point of reference by others. “From time to time,
other faith-based organisations have requested to consult the WCC’s
policies.”165
This brief overview of the World Council of Churches indicates the resoluteness on
behalf of the organisation to confront the issues of climate change in a
comprehensive and energetic way and has demonstrated the practical application
of the attributes listed in the previous section. The following section will discuss the
world’s five major religions differing perspectives on climate change.
4.4. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu and Buddhist Perspectives on
climate change
4.4.1. Christianity
Looking back in history, there have always been Christian thinkers who held much
concern for the environment. 166 For example, Saint Francis of Assisi (1181/1182 –
1226), an Italian Catholic friar and preacher, was one of the first known persons
within the Christian tradition to exhibit a nature mysticism. Saint Francis is renowned
by many as the patron saint of animals and ecology. 167 Although there were other
early Christian environmental thinkers, including Mechtild of Magdeburg (c. 1207 –
c. 1282/1294); Meister Ekhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327); and Julian of Norwich (1342 – c.
1416), these thinkers were mostly exceptions to the rule as Christianity, in general,
had at that time largely demonstrated a lack of concern for environmental issues. 168
Following the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, this lack of concern
was heightened even further with an increased emphasis on the individual and the
Peter Kenney “World Council of Churches says it will not invest in fossil fuels” Ecumenical News available online at
http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/world-council-of-churches-says-it-will-not-invest-in-fossil-fuels-25685.
163
Ibid.
164
Ibid.
165
Ibid.
166
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 160.
167
Ibid. On Easter Sunday, 1980, Pope John Paul II proclaimed Saint Francis of Assisi the patron saint of ecology, following the
suggestion 13 years earlier by Lynn White, Jr. in his seminal article in Science.
168
Ibid.
162
96
rights thereof.169 Any duties or responsibilities to the environment were more or less
consigned to the background. Church documents from the late nineteenth and mid
twentieth century’s reflected this anthropocentric behaviour. For example Leo XIII’s
Rerum Novarum, the Papal Encyclical of 1891 expressly stated that:
“The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race
can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to
mankind in general not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like.
Rather, although no part of it was assigned to anyone in particular, man could by his industry
make his own that part of nature’s field which he cultivates ...and it cannot but be just that
he should possess that portion as his own.” 170
Pius XII’s declaration on the fiftieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum in 1941
reinforced the concept of private ownership to the effect that “Every man... has in
fact from nature the fundamental right to make use of the material goods of the
earth... This right cannot in any way be suppressed.”171
It was not until the second half of the twentieth century that Christians began
addressing environmental issues at any substantial level. For example, historian
Lynn White instigated much thought and debate when he published, The Historical
Roots of our Ecological Crisis in 1967. 172 He stated that many of today’s
environmental issues could be traced to the Christian notion that God gave earth to
humans for their use and specifically directed them to exercise dominion over the
earth and all of its life forms.173 White criticized the Western European version of
Christianity from the Renaissance forward, with its rationalistic view of science and
technology, in combination with the Bible: “It was ceasing to be the decoding of the
physical symbols of God’s communication with man and was becoming the effort to
understand God’s mind by discovering how his creation operates.” 174 Disengaged
from nature by the Bible, given the power of scientific domination, humanity had in
White’s analysis, unleashed an increasing devastation upon the earth. 175 White
qualified his argument, however, by stating, “Christianity is a complex faith, and its
consequences differ in differing contexts.”176 He also argued that Christians could
learn to live in harmony with the environment, if only they would emulate Saint
Francis, who “proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature
169
Ibid.
Rerum Novarum Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor. Available online at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html.
171
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 164.
172
Lynn Townsend White, Jr. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis” 1967, Science, Vol 155, No. 3767.
173
Ibid 7; and Holy Bible: Genesis 128.
174
Ibid.
175
Ibid.
176
Ibid.
170
97
and man’s relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures,
including man, for the idea of man’s limitless rule of creation.”177
The overall effect of White’s essay has been to serve as a denunciation of
Christianity as the source of the planet’s environmental problems. It may also be
credited, however, with provoking a positive shift in Christian thinking on
environmental matters, as in differing ways, the main churches have sought to either
revise or re-examine their theology and practices. 178 For example, in 1988, the
World Council of Churches (WCC) at a meeting in Granvollen, Norway, stated:
”The drive to have “mastery” over creation has resulted in the senseless exploitation of
natural resources, the alienation of the land from people and the destruction of indigenous
cultures ... Creation came into being by the will and love of the Triune God, and as such it
possesses an inner cohesion and goodness. Though human eyes may not always discern
it, every creature and the whole creation in chorus bear witness to the glorious unity and
harmony with which creation is endowed. And when our human eyes are opened and our
tongues unloosed, we too learn to praise and participate in the life, love, power and freedom
that is God’s continuing gift and grace”.179
Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens similarly
commented:
"... by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he [man] risks destroying it and
becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation [...] flight from the land, industrial
growth, continual demographic expansion and the attraction of urban centres bring
about concentrations of population difficul t to imagine." 180
As part of his 1990 New Year message (para 15), Pope John Paul II stated:
"Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their
duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith”. 181 The Pope
elaborated on this theme in his Message for the World Day of Peace (para 10) in
1999 when he proclaimed, “the world’s present and future depend on the
safeguarding of creation, because of the endless interdependence between
human beings and their environment”. 182 He also issued a warning, stating:
“the danger of serious damage to land and sea, and to the climate, flora and
177
Ibid 10.
“Christian Faith Statement” Faiths & Ecology, ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at
http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=69.
179
Ibid.
180
Pope John Paul VI “Octogesima Adveniens” The Vatican website, at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html
181
Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1990 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-forpeace_en.html.
182
Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1999 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-forpeace_en.html.
178
98
fauna, calls for a profound change in modern civilisation’s typical consumer
life-style, particularly in the richer countries”. 183 This was reiterated even more
forcibly in his January 2001 General Audience with the words “If one looks at
the regions of our planet, one realizes that humanity has disappointed the
divine expectation ... humiliating ... the earth, that flower-bed that is our
dwelling”. 184
Pope Benedict XVI, during his service as Pope between 2005 and 2013, was
also proactive in his statements on environmental issues. For example, in 2008 he
emphasized the need for ecological responsibility: “We need to care for the
environment; it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and
cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding
criterion.”185 In 2009 he stated: “The Church has a responsibility towards creation
and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere.”186 In 2010, he criticized
the failure by world leaders to agree to a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen,
criticizing the “economic and political resistance” to fighting environmental
degradation.187
In March 2013, the new Pope chose his name Francis, in honour of Saint Francis
of Assisi, the Catholic Church’s patron saint of animals and the environment. In his
first mass, Pope Francis proclaimed: “Let us be protectors of creation, protectors of
God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment.”188
The need to care for the environment was further strengthened in the document
Orthodoxy and the Ecological Crisis, by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1990:
“We must attempt to return to a proper relationship with the Creator AND the creation. This
may well mean that just as a shepherd will in times of greatest hazard, lay down his life for
his flock, so human beings may need to forego part of their wants and needs in order that
the survival of the natural world can be assured. This is a new situation - a new challenge.
It calls for humanity to bear some of the pain of creation as well as to enjoy and celebrate it.
It calls first and foremost for repentance - but of an order not previously understood by
many.” (10–11)
183
Ibid (para 10).
John Paul II General Audience (para 4) 17 January 2001 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010117_en.html.
185
Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2008 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-daypeace_en.html.
186
Encycclical Letter Caritas in Veritate of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and
Women Religious the Lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html.
187
David Willey Pope Benedict XVI lambasts Copenhagen failure. 11 January 2010. BBC News website at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8452447.stm.
188
Marcela Valente “Pope Francis Raises Hope for an Ecological Church” Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS) at
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/pope-francis-raises-hopes-for-an-ecological-church/.
184
99
The Orthodox Church teaches that humanity, both individually and collectively,
should perceive the natural order as a sign and sacrament of God and that it
is the responsibility of humanity to restore the proper relationship between God and
the world as it was in Eden. Through repentance, two landscapes—the one human,
the other natural—can become the objects of a caring and creative effort. But
repentance must be accompanied by soundly focused initiatives that manifest the
ethos of Orthodox Christian faith.189
The World Council of Churches, predominantly Protestant, but also with full
Orthodox participation, produced a series of conclusions on the issues of
Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation: 190
We affirm that the world, as God's handiwork, has its own inherent i ntegrity; that land,
waters, air, forests, mountains and all creatures, including all humanity, are 'good' in
God's sight. The integrity of creation has a social aspect which we recognise as peace
with justice, and an ecological aspect which we recognise i n the self-renewing,
sustainable character of natural ecosystems.
We will resist the claim that anything in creation is merely a resource for human
exploitation. We will resist species extinction for human benefit; consumerism and
harmful mass production; pollution of land, air and waters; all human activities which
are now leading to probable rapid climate change; and the policies and plans which
contribute to the disintegration of creation.
Therefore we commit ourselves to be members both of the living co mmunity of
creation in which we are but one species, and of the covenant community of Christ;
to be full co-workers with God, with moral responsibility to respect the rights of future
generations; and to conserve and work for the integrity of creation both for its inherent
value to God and in order that justice may be achieved and sustained.
Numerous Christian climate change initiatives have evolved alongside the various
proclamations. For example, the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) is a group of
over 300 senior evangelical leaders in the United States committed to helping solve
the issues associated with climate change. They recognize both the opportunity and
the responsibility in offering a biblically based moral account that can help shape
public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the
well-being of the world.191 ECI have offered a statement that puts forward four simple
but urgent claims, and urge all to take appropriate actions to follow from them. The
claims, as represented in the document Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to
Action, are expounded in Appendix A.
The teaching orders of monks and nuns also have an important role to play
in educating people about environmental issues. They often own lan d, and
“Christian Faith Statement” Faiths & Ecology, ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at
http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=69.
190
Ibid.
191
Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/.
189
100
many have started organic farming projects, tree nurseries and similar
practical programmes on their own land. The Sisters of the Humility of Mary in
Villa Maria, Pennsylvania, for example, are a group of religious women
dedicated to works of peacemaking, justice, and care for the Earth. Villa Maria
encompasses 726 acres of farmland, wetlands, forest, a bird sanctuary and
nature trails. The naturally grown produce produces food for residents and
guests as well as people served by food banks and outre ach programs in the
area. Educational programs on topics of land and soil use, and care of
wetlands, forests and wildlife are also offered in cooperation with farm-based
environmental education. 192 And in Crete, the Chrysopigi Monastry near
Chania is renowned for its ecological and environmental actions. 193 The nuns
cultivate approximately 130 acres of land with olive, tangerine, orange,
avocado, fig, apricot trees and vegetable gardens. 194 All are organically grown.
From the products, they mainly sell organic oil in order to promote organic
farming to locals and tourists. Organic wastes of the monastery are converted
into compost for using as fertilizers, while the rest are recycled. Moreover, the
nuns run environmental education programs for school children from all over
Europe.195
Catholic schools, colleges and charitable organisations are becoming
increasingly aware and active in environmental matters. 196 Many Catholic
Universities
have
departments
of
engineering
which
have
assumed
environmental responsibilities, and in many cases, these universities have
developed environmental studies institutes. 197 For example, the Au Sable
Institute of Environmental Studies offers environmental science programmes
for students and adults of all ages, from primary school to graduate school. 198
This Christian institute carries the mission of bringing both the Christian
community and the public at large to a fuller, deeper, and better understanding
of the stewardship of God’s creation. It offers field -based, university level
courses at campuses in the Great Lakes region, Pacific Northwest, South
India, and Latin America. Au Sable’s focus is to create and provide new
knowledge and resources about the care of creation that address both
scientific understanding and theological perspective. 199
192
Sisters of the Humility of Mary website at http://www.humilityofmary.org/villa-farm.html .
Chrysopigi Monastry, Chania, Crete at http://www.cretanbeaches.com/Monasteries/Chania-Monasteries/chrysopigimonastery-near-chania/.
194
Ibid.
195
Ibid.
196
Alexander Belopopsky “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website
at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051.
197
Ibid.
198
Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies website at http://ausable.org/about/.
199
Ibid.
193
101
Most other Protestant churches such as the Methodists, Lutherans and
Baptists, now have an international policy agreement to work on enviro nmental
concerns. At national and local levels thousands of churches have introduced
programmes on recycling and education along with practical schemes on
church lands. Within some of the most active of the smaller churches, such as
the indigenous churches of Asia, Africa and Latin America, environmental
concerns work in close cooperation with the rediscovery or reintegration of
traditional cultures and Christianity. 200 In areas such as the Philippines
churches assist indigenous peoples in struggling for land rights and against
economic and environmental exploitation. For example, the National Council
of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) Comprehensive Ecology and
Environmental Protection Program (CEEPP) was a pioneering work among
Philippine churches which provided valuable lessons and insights not only in
environmental education and advocacy but also in implementing development
programmes in the Philippine context. 201 The CEEPP “extended invaluable
material and moral support for the conduct of a number of campa igns in the
regions, especially around the issues of large -scale and other destructive
forms of mining, such as open-pit mining, conversion of agricultural lands into
tourist and export industry zones, and mega-dams,” stated Toquero, former
CEEPP staff.202
It is not only the churches and schools that have shown environmental
concern. Many of the major Christian aid agencies, such as Caritas, Christian
Aid and the German and Swedish Lutheran aid agencies have also made
environmental factors integral parts of their development programmes around
the world.203
Although progress may appear slow at times, the examples above indicate
that Christian involvement in environmental issues is on the increase and this
involvement has immense potential to play a positive role in future discussions
for climate change governance, in both national and international arenas.
4.4.2. Islam
Khalid states that it has often been observed that Islam cannot, as a rule, be
described as a religion as it prescribes a way of life that goes beyond the recital of
Alexander Belopopsky “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website
at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051.
201
Peace for Life Secretariat “Philippines: Church people, environmental groups call for ecological wholeness amid
environmental crisis” news report at http://www.peaceforlife.org/news/local/2009/09-0825-ncejed.html.
202
Ibid.
203
Alexander Belopopsky “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website
at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051.
200
102
rituals.204 In the Qu’ran, the word religion (din) appears in 90 different places and
mostly in contexts that place it outside the purely ritual. 205 Din describes a code of
behaviour which deals with issues such as personal hygiene to human’s relationship
with the natural order. It thus provides a holistic approach to existence and does not
differentiate between the sacred and the secular. Everything is seen as important
and as interdependent on everything else. There is no distinction between the world
of mankind and the world of nature.206 However, Khalid states this Islamic mode of
expression has become greatly weakened over time and today the natural world is
treated exclusively as an exploitable resource. The secular ethic, he says, “has
progressively seeped into the Muslim psyche and as industrial development,
economic indicators and consumerism became the governing parameters of
society, there has been a corresponding erosion of the Muslim perception of the
holistic and a withering of its understanding of the sacred nexus between the human
community and the rest of the natural order.” 207
In Islam, human-environment interactions are guided by the notion of the person
as a khalifa, meaning a viceregent or steward of the earth. It is impermissible in
Islam to abuse one’s rights as khalifa, because the notion of acting in “good faith”
underpins Islamic law. The planet was inherited by all humankind and “all its
posterity from generation to generation .... Each generation is only the trustee. No
one generation has the right to pollute the planet or consume its natural resources
in a manner that leaves for posterity only a polluted planet or one seriously denuded
of its resources.”208 In other contexts, the concept of khalifa refers to the fact that
waves of humanity will continuously succeed each other and inherit planet earth. 209
The Qur’an commands believers to, “Make not mischief on the earth” 210 and
declares that “Corruptness hath appeared on land and sea because of that which
men’s hands have earned, so that he (God) may make them taste a part of which
they have done (deeds they have done), in order that haply they may turn (back
from evil).” 211 When human-produced “mischief” – “fassad” – spoils the natural
order, God penalizes people with the same type of affliction that they have inflicted
on His creation. 212 The other meanings of fassad include taking something
unjustifiably and unfairly or spoiling or degrading (natural) resources.213 The notion
Fazlun M Khalid “Islam and the Environment” Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
Chichester, 2002) 332 – 339.
205
Ibid.
206
Ibid.
207
Ibid.
208
Christopher G Weeramantry Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective (St Martins Press, New York, 1988) 61.
209
Hussein A. Amery “Rights of the Environment” in Water Management in Islam edited by Naser I. Faruqui, Asit K. Biswas, and
Murad J. Bino (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2001) 41.
210
Holy Qur’an 2:11
211
Holy Qur’an 30:41.
212
Hussein A. Amery “Rights of the Environment” in Water Management in Islam edited by Naser I. Faruqui, Asit K. Biswas, and
Murad J. Bino (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2001) 42.
213
Ibid.
204
103
of fassad is not associated with any specific time and place, and is thus universal
and everlasting in scope.214 Fassad is mentioned in the context of “land and sea”. It
is however reasonable to assume that this notion also encompasses all other
components of the ecosystem because the Qur’an states that to God, the creator of
everything, belong the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them and
what is beneath the ground. Islamic teachings, including the Qur’an, therefore,
command Muslims to avoid and prevent fassad, which encompasses undue
exploitation or degradation of environmental resources. This perspective is
especially revealing in light of the Islamic belief that the natural world is subservient
to the human world. Humans are consequently permitted to use and transform the
natural environment, with which they are entrusted, to serve their survival needs.
For example, God states that humans may use His (good) resources for their
sustenance on the condition that they “commit no excess (la tatghou) therein, lest
My wrath should justly descend on you.” Muslims who engage in fassad are
effectively sinners and environmentally disrupting conduct amounts to breaking
“God’s covenant after it is ratified.”215
Richard Foltz believes that Islam may have a special role to play in
environmental justice issues.216 He states “It is a tragic reality that the poor suffer
far more directly from environmental degradation than do the rich, who are better
able to insulate themselves from its effects. And on a global scale, a
disproportionate percentage of the world’s poor happen to be Muslim.”217
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a key Muslim environmental thinker, argues that Islam,
with its belief in unity, does not contain the divide between man and nature as can
be found in Christianity. 218 Traditional Islam supports a harmonious balance
between human and nature, while both modern and fundamentalist versions distort
verses from the Qur’an.219 Nasr believes that a true Islamic state would be inherently
environmentalist, in which stability, rather than change and uncertainty, will allow
the environment to return to its nurturing state.220 “Unfortunately, today the West
dominates the world economy, so Islam reacts to the West both economically and
politically. The West sets the agenda.”221 Nasr speaks also of the destructiveness
of the separation between religion and the secular domain “which is rooted in
Western modern science and its domination of our view of nature, a view that
214
Ibid.
Holy Quran 2:27
216
Richard Foltz “Introduction” Islam and Ecology Edited by Richard Foltz, Frederick Denny & Azizan Baharuddin (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 2003) p xxxix.
217
Ibid.
218
Seyyed Hossein Nasr Islam and the Plight of Modern Man (Longman Group, London, 1975) 4.
219
Ibid.
220
Ibid.
221
Marjorie Hope and James Young “Islam and Ecology” http://www.crosscurrents.org/islamecology.htm.
215
104
separates nature from the sacred.”222 While Nasr is not hostile to Western science
he is hostile to its claim to be the only valid science of the natural world. 223 He states
that Western science has become illegitimate because scientists and the rest of
society fail to see the need for a higher knowledge into which it could be integrated.
The spiritual value of nature is destroyed and we cannot save the natural world
except by rediscovering the sacred in nature.224
Kabir Helminski holds the belief that, influenced strongly by the dominant West,
Islam has lost its way.225 He argues that it needs to return to a path of developing
human reason and spirit while avoiding the “globalisation of consumer culture and
commercial values” that “is rapidly displacing spiritual values.” 226 He therefore
suggests an accord between Islam and those in the West who “are turning away
from consumerism and materialism toward voluntary simplicity and humane
values.”227
The belief that environmentalism is a concern only for elites with the money and
leisure to worry about nature is still common among Muslims. One research team
has found a widespread attitude among Muslims that, “when we catch up with the
technological superiority of the West, then we can begin to focus on this issue.” 228
Muslim society rebels against the West but at the same time, seeks to surpass it which creates a philosophical stumbling block obstructing a stronger contribution to
environmentalism.229
The Arab and Muslim world has, however, begun to pay attention to global
environmental issues. During the last twenty years especially, an increasing
number of environmental organisations have been established and the awareness
of environmental issues has increased. For example, in 2008, the Bay Area chapter
of the Muslim American Society (a society who believe living a “greener” lifestyle is
not only healthier and socially responsible, but an essential and mandatory
component of a Muslim’s life), established the Muslim Green Team. 230 This
grassroots environmental campaign promotes environmentally conscious and
sustainable practices in all spheres of human activity.231 The primary objectives of
Muslim Green Team are (1) to fulfill the duty to Allah in adopting environmentally
friendly practices; (2) to contribute to the increasingly global effort to reverse the
222
Ibid.
Ibid.
224
Ibid.
225
Kabir Helmsinki “The Dialog of Civilisations and the Globalisation of Spirit” The Threshold Society as quoted by Ethan
Goffman “God, Humanity and Nature: Comparative Religious Views of the Environment” (Review article) ProQuest
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/envrel/review.php#n6.
226
Ibid.
227
Ibid.
228
Marjorie Hope and James Young “Islam and Ecology” http://www.crosscurrents.org/islamecology.htm.
229
Ibid.
230
Muslim Green Team website at http://muslimgreenteam.org/about.
231
Ibid.
223
105
effects of environmentally irresponsible practices; (3) to raise awareness about
environmental issues within the Muslim community; (4) to demonstrate the
environmental message of Islam; and (5) to contribute the unique, Islamic
perspective of the environment to the national and global environmental
conversation. 232 The Muslim Green Team holds an annual Eco-fair to grow
awareness to all these matters and educates the community on how to participate
in environmentally responsible practices.233 Additionally, the Muslim Green Team
organizes a project every year targeting a particular area of concern. These projects
are intended to unite the community behind a specific cause to have a larger
environmental impact, and so that the particular positive change can become part
of the culture of the community. The entire community supports each other in
making permanent, productive changes.234
Another example of an organisation which expresses Islamic perspectives on
the environment is the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences
(IFEES) - an internationally recognised charity organisation which is motivated by
Islamic principles such as tawhid (unity), amana (entrustment) of the Earth to khalifa
(the stewardship of humankind), and a system of ethics grounded in the Qur’an and
sunnah (the guidance) of the Prophet Muhammad.235 The main objective of IFEES
is to set up a centre for Islamic research on conservation practice which would teach
practical and theoretical subjects based on the principles of Shariah.236 In West
Africa in 2011, IFEES conducted a two-day training session on environmental ethics
based on the Qur’an. It was attended by Islamic scholars and Qur’an school
teachers from the Kano region of Northern Nigeria. Participants were trained to
develop techniques to disseminate environmental messages to their communities,
particularly on climate change. They were also taught how to devise projects in
keeping with local conditions. 237 Also in 2011, Climate4Classrooms (C4C), an
international partnership programme between the British Council, the Royal
Geographical Society and the Royal Meteorological Society invited IFEES to deliver
two workshops on Islamic Environmental ethics in Java and Surabaya. 238 The
IFEES centre also serves as a demonstration and promotional site for experimental
projects on sustainable land resource management and traditional and nonindustrial farming techniques (organic farming) as well as the development of
232
Ibid.
Ibid.
234
Ibid.
235
Forum on Religion and Ecology “Islam Engaged Projects – Islamic Foundation for ecology and Environmental Sciences
(IFEES) at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/projects/islamic_foundation.html.
236
Ibid.
237
Eco Islam magazine, June 2011, Issue no.08 found at http://www.ifees.org.uk.
238
Ibid.
233
106
alternative low energy, low cost technology (water wheels, solar panels, and waste
recycling).239
Many Muslim religious scholars have published books and religious rulings
concerning environmental matters. For example, Green Deen: What Islam Teaches
about Protecting the Planet written by Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, is a publication
concerning environmental living and policy from a Muslim perspective.240 In a time
when many associate Islam with terrorism and oil, the long history of
environmentalism that is inherent in the Qur’an and Islamic teachings has been
forgotten and this book seeks to remedy the position. Environmentalism in the
Muslim World by Richard Foltz provides an overview of how Muslim activists are
responding on the ground to the global environmental crisis. Although it states that
governments of Muslim societies have been slow to respond to environmental
problems, environmental awareness and activism are nevertheless growing, with
environmental initiatives currently underway in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan,
Nigeria, and Malaysia.241
4.4.3. Judaism
As has been observed with other religions, engagement of Judaism with
environmental issues is not simple or straightforward. Although many Jewish groups
are active, the philosophy on the need for environmental activism varies greatly from
one branch of Judaism to another. A type of continuum is followed, with
Reconstructionist being the most left-leaning, followed by Reform, Conservative and
Orthodox, which consists of the most observant.242 Troster, a conservative Rabbi,
states the Reconstructionist and Reform groups have carried out a much better job
on the national level, with the Orthodox groups (the more inward-looking and least
open to the outside, secular world) having done the least.243 For example, Hasidism,
the most observant sect, is entirely isolated and opposed to modern science or the
secular world. 244 Nevertheless, pockets of activism can be found throughout all
Jewish groups, and in particular among the more secular Jews.245
The reason for the varying degrees of activism lies in the fact that there are
several ways in which to understand or interpret the application of biblical, Talmudic,
Forum on Religion and Ecology “Islam Engaged Projects – Islamic Foundation for ecology and Environmental Sciences
(IFEES) at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/projects/islamic_foundation.html.
240
Ibrahim Abdul-Matin Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, San
Francisco, 2010).
241
Richard Foltz Environmentalism in the Muslim World (Nova Science Publishers, Inc, USA, 2005).
242
Julie Halpert “Judaism and Climate Change” The Yale Forum on Clmate Change and the Media at
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/judaism-and-climate-change/.
243
Ibid.
244
Ibid. In 1990 the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation passed a movement-wide resolution on the environment and
congregational life. Since 2006 it has offered conference calls and resources on sustainable synagogues and living a Jewish life
rooted in ecological values.
245
Ibid.
239
107
or medieval categories and values to contemporary problems.246 Benstein states
that one approach maintains that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles 1:411), and therefore chazal, the early rabbinic sages, knew all that is necessary to
deal successfully with climate change and other contemporary pressures. 247
According to this view, all questions and answers have been revealed, and the
process of applying ancient texts to modern problems is relatively uncomplicated. 248
A second approach appreciates the challenges we presently face are largely
unprecedented, and no simple or automatic answers can be found in pre-modern
sources. 249 Moreover, Benstein states, “the decidedly religious character of the
classical texts makes them doubly archaic and arcane in relation to our
technological lives, with their singular opportunities and threats.”250 According to this
view, the challenges will be met by scientists and technocrats familiar with the latest
innovations rather than by religious authorities.251
A third approach in understanding Judaism’s relationship to the environment
centres around the belief that the Torah and traditional sources are crucially relevant
but as their meaningful application to adherents lives is far from automatic, a
creative interpretation is now required. Namely, one can accept the essential
newness of many of the issues while at the same time still embrace the need for
guiding values and insight from timeless sources. 252 Benstein contends it is not
enough to be extensively trained in the intricacies of Talmudic thought without
comprehensive instruction in the details and data of contemporary environmental
discourse. Likewise, mere technical knowledge can never by itself address the real
underlying questions, which are issues of beliefs, values, and worldviews, all of
which require wisdom, not just data.253
Classical Jewish texts have much to say about the relationship of man to nature.
Ancient and medieval Jewish texts both express and are consistent with a strong
environmental ethic and impose numerous restrictions on how, when, and to what
extent people can use the natural environment.254 Rather than simply expressing
anthropocentric values, many of its ideas and principles either explicitly or implicitly
evoke themes that are consistent with eco- or bio-centric understandings of the
relationship between people and nature.255 However, its teachings are not identical
246
Jeremy Benstein The Way into Judaism and the Environment (Jewish Lights Publishing, Vermont, 2006) 1.
Ibid.
248
Ibid.
249
Ibid.
250
Ibid.
251
Ibid.
252
Ibid 2.
253
Ibid.
254
David Vogel “How Green is Judaism? Exploring Jewish Environmental Ethics Business Ethics Quarterly Vol 11, No 2 (Apr
2001) 350.
255
Ibid.
247
108
to them. Specifically, Judaism does not regard the preservation or protection of
nature as the most important societal value. It holds that humans are not just a part
of nature but have privileged and distinctive moral claims. It believes that nature can
threaten humans as well as the obverse. It argues that nature should be used and
enjoyed as well as protected.256 Vogel suggests then, that Judaism contains both
“green” and “non-green” elements.257 While the natural world must be respected
and admired, its challenge to human interests and values must also be recognised.
Therefore, the most important contribution of ancient and medieval Jewish texts to
contemporary environmental discourse lies in the concept of balance – balance
between viewing nature as a source of life and moral values and as a threat to
human life and social values.258 Vogel states the teachings of Judaism challenge
both those who would place too low a value on nature as well as those who would
place too high a value on it.259
Although in the past, environmental issues have rarely been on the agenda,
Orthodox rabbis are now increasingly focusing their sermons on issues such as
climate change. While many Jews appreciate these problems are largely secular,
they also understand that solutions must "be based on religious and moral
values."260 For example, the Jewish Climate Initiative provides a Jewish response
to the global climate crisis through the promotion of innovative science, technology
and ethical leadership.261 This not-for-profit organisation, created for the purposes
of Tikkun Olam (“repairing the world” in Hebrew), provides a unique contribution to
climate change action in three critical areas: (1) Ethics – the ethical and spiritual
wellsprings of Jewish tradition are examined anew for guidance for the planet as a
whole; (2) Policy and Activism – the long experience of Jewish activism to improve
the world is directed at the critical challenge of climate change; (3) Science and
Technology – applies skills in technology development and commercialisation to
those fields that need to be advanced in order to reverse the potentially dire effects
of climate change.262 The issues the Jewish Climate Initiative is addressing include:

Pollution Ethics – How can Jewish environmental law be generalized and reasoned
to inform policy on global climate change?

Pikuah Nefesh – The central Jewish value of saving lives as it impacts global
warming.
256
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
259
Ibid.
260
Ibid.
261
Jewish Climate Initiative website at http://www.jewishclimateinitiative.org/home/.
262
Ibid.
257
258
109

Ethical Consumption – How can Jewish ethics help us shift to sustainable patterns
of energy and water consumption? How can they challenge the ethos of excessive
consumption that drives environmental degradation?

Intergenerational Justice – Climate change threatens to bequeath a far less
hospitable world to our children and grandchildren. What are our obligations to
preserve the conditions of life for future generations?

Global Justice – Climate change disproportionately affects the world’s poorest and
most vulnerable citizens, leading to critical disagreements between rich and poor
nations about who should bear the costs averting and mitigating climate change
impacts. What can Jewish teachings contribute to these debates?

Midrashic Narratives – The scale of the climate change challenge requires
narratives of “mythical” scope to be adequately grasped. The default myth of global
warming in Western societies is one of hellfire as a consequence of sin. Jewish
Climate Initiative is articulating religiously-based narratives of climate change that
are less paralyzing and more empowering.

Climate Change Theology – Climate science demonstrates the potential of human
activities to profoundly affect the weather, a domain reserved by classical theologies
for the Divine. This fact may have profound implications for traditional categories of
faith and prayer in relation to natural phenomena.

Interfaith Engagement – The world’s faiths can be an immensely powerful force for
behavioural change in combating global warming. It is the aim of Judaism to
actualize this power and, through dialogue with other religious leaders to stimulate
them to actualize it in their own faith communities.
The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) is another example
of the Jewish community’s commitment to stewardship and protection of the Earth.
The COEJLs goal is to mobilize the Jewish community to conserve energy, increase
sustainability, and advocate for policies that increase energy efficiency and security
while building core Jewish environmental knowledge and serving as a Jewish voice
in the broader interfaith community. 263 COEJL addresses the climate crisis through
advocacy for appropriate legislation as well as action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by challenging and supporting Jewish organisations to practice
sustainability in their facilities, operations and programs. 264 It also seeks to expand
the contemporary understanding of such Jewish values as tikkun olam (repairing
the Earth) and tzedek (justice) to include the protection of both people and other
species from environmental degradation. 265 To advance its mission, COEJL
“COEJL: Protecting Creation, Generation to Generation” at http://coejl.org/.
Ibid.
265
Ibid.
263
264
110
partners with the complete field of national Jewish organisations to integrate Jewish
values of environmental stewardship into Jewish life.
266
It also works with
synagogues and other local Jewish organisations to bring Jewish environmental
education, ecologically-conscious Jewish observance, and opportunities for
environmental action to Jewish families and individuals. 267 It supports rabbis,
educators, and Jewish scholars to develop and distribute materials that express
diverse Jewish perspectives on environmental issues and brings a Jewish vision
and voice to issues of environmental justice and sustainability, by advocating on
behalf of the Jewish community. The COEJL also participates in inter-religious and
civic coalitions to protect the environment, public health, and our common future.268
4.4.4. Hinduism
Hinduism, as a non-Abrahamic religion, rivals the Christian and Muslim faiths in
size, with close to a billion followers. It is a remarkably diverse religious and cultural
phenomenon, with many local and regional manifestations.269 Although it has no
church, no single leader or scripture, and no representative global council, it does
have five important themes arising from its core of beliefs. These themes suggest
that: (1) the earth can be seen as a manifestation of the goddess, and must be
treated with respect; (2) the five elements – space, air, fire, water and earth – are
the foundation of an interconnected web of life; (3) dharma, often translated as duty,
can be interpreted to include our responsibility to care for the earth; (4) simple living
is a model for the development of sustainable economies; and (5) our treatment of
nature directly affects our karma.270 Gandhi exemplified many of these teachings,
and his example continues to inspire social, religious and environmental leaders in
their efforts to protect the planet.271
The Vedas (a large body of texts originating in ancient India) have offered
numerous texts and rituals that extol the earth (bhu), the atmosphere (bhuvah), and
sky (sva), as well as the goddess associated with the earth (Prthivi), and the gods
associated with water (Ap), with fire and heat (Agni), and the wind (Vayu). 272 The
centrality of these gods and goddesses suggests an underlying ecological
sensitivity within the Hindu tradition.273 Hindu religious thinkers and activists have
begun to reflect on how the broader values of Hindu tradition might contribute to
266
Ibid.
Ibid.
268
Ibid.
269
Pankaj Jain “10 Hindu Environmental Teachings” Religion, Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-jainphd/10-hindu-environmental-te_b_846245.html
270
Ibid.
271
Ibid.
272
Christopher Key Chapple “Hindusm, Jainism, and Ecology” at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/hinduism/.
273
Ibid.
267
111
promoting greater care for the earth.274 For example, Gandhi’s advocacy of simple
living through the principles of nonviolence and truthfulness is an important step
forward as it gives Hindus the incentive or drive necessary to consider lifestyle
changes that are now required due to contemporary consumerism.275
The Bhumi Project is a worldwide Hindu response to the environmental issues
facing the planet. Based at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, alongside the
Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), it works with Hindu organisations,
communities, temples and individuals in all parts of the world. 276 The project
organizers believe, that with a Hindu population of 900 million worldwide, Hindu
communities, sampradays, and sanghas could become an important voice in
addressing climate change. The project itself is named after Bhumi Devi, a Sanskrit
name for the personality of Mother Earth, famed in Indian literature. The aims of the
project are to educate, inspire, inform, and connect Hindus interested in protection
of the planet; to develop long term sustainable plans beginning with a Nine-Year
timeframe; and to build a base of global partners and friends who encourage best
environmental practice.277 It seeks to apply traditional wisdom to modern concerns,
stating that it is not about teaching something new, but rather re-learning what it is
that was once known, but now forgotten.278
One of the schemes currently being explored by the Nine-Year Action Plan is a
‘Hindu Labeling Scheme’ whereby a set of standards based on the principles of
ahimsa (non-violence) will aid in assisting the Hindu community in ethical buying in
line with its ethos and values.279 It proposes a ‘Hindu benchmark’ for a range of
products and services including renewable energy, ethically sourced food,
transport, and other products and services that assist sustainable lifestyles.280 The
labeling scheme is hoped to commence by 2014 in the UK, with the hope that other
countries will also be encouraged to develop similar schemes.281
There are several other schemes presently being developed within the NineYear Action Plan. For example, ‘Compassionate Living’ will collaborate with
organisations who wish to promote a more compassionate, vegetarian lifestyle. 282 It
is widely acknowledged that the meat industry is one of the largest contributors of
greenhouse gases and to help address this issue, the scheme aims to encourage
274
Ibid.
Ibid.
The Bhumi Project at http://bhumiproject.org/.
277
Ibid.
278
Ibid.
279
“The Bhumi Project: Respect, Compassion and Service for our Environment” The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, University
of Oxford, http://www.bhumiproject.org/downloads/TheBhumiProject.pdf.
280
Ibid.
281
Ibid.
282
Ibid.
275
276
112
all Hindus to consider reducing or eliminating meat from their diets. 283 The
development of ‘Temple Gardens’ is another example. 284 This scheme aims to
promote the development of temple gardens, where only organic gardening
principles are used. It will work alongside local and national gardening organisations
and experts to learn best practices and increase organic and sustainable
standards.285 It is hoped that by defining clear temple standards, creation of positive
change in the habits of devotees will develop.286 Gopal Patel, Project Manager for
the Bhumi Project has stated, “Hindu temples were traditionally the standardbearers for good practice in the community. By making our places of worship earthfriendly, we can send a clear message that care for the environment is central to
Hindu life.”
287
Jose Dallo, of the United Nations Development Programme also
added: “The Preamble of the UN Charter talks about ‘We the Peoples of the United
Nations.’ Sometimes the United Nations has been concentrating on the
Governments of the World. We recognise that achieving the international agreed
goals will require development partnerships which reflect that civil society has an
important role to play. Initiatives like the Hindu Green Temple Initiative are very
much about the people, and what the people want to achieve.”288
The Bhumi Project acknowledges that effective education is vital to all aspects
of the plan and is aimed at effecting a generational change in the Hindu
community.289 It also recognizes that audiences, traditions, practices, and teachings
can widely differ in the Hindu community. However, it aims to meet this challenge
by acknowledging and addressing all facets of Hindu thought and practice in their
educational initiatives.290
Hindus released the Hindu Declaration on Climate Change in December 2009,
at the finale of the Convocation of Hindu Spiritual Leaders Parliament of the World’s
Religions.291 It stated:
The Hindu tradition understands that man is not separate from nature, that we are linked by
spiritual, psychological and physical bonds with the elements around us. Knowing that the
Divine is present everywhere and in all things, Hindus strive to do no harm. We hold a deep
reverence for life and an awareness that the great forces of nature – the earth, the water,
283
Ibid.
Ibid.
285
Ibid.
286
Ibid.
287
Gopal Patel, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Recieves White House Launch” ISKCON News at
http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-08-02/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch.
288
Joes Dallo, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Recieves White Hosue Launch” ISKCON News at
http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-08-02/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch.
289
“The Bhumi Project: Respect, Compassion and Service for our Environment” The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, University
of Oxford, http://www.bhumiproject.org/downloads/TheBhumiProject.pdf.
290
Ibid.
291
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/pdf_downloads/hindu-climate-change-declaration.pdf.
284
113
the fire, the air and space – as well as all the various orders of life, including plants and
trees, forests and animals, are bound to each other within life’s cosmic web. …
We cannot continue to destroy nature without also destroying ourselves. The dire problems
besetting our world – war, disease, poverty and hunger – will all be magnified many fold by
the predicted impacts of climate change. …
Humanity’s very survival depends upon our capacity to make a major transition of
consciousness equal in significance to earlier transitions from nomadic to agricultural,
agricultural to industrial and industrial to technological. We must transit to complementarity
in place of competition, convergence in place of conflict, holism in place of hedonism,
optimisation in place of maximisation. We must, in short, move rapidly towards a global
consciousness that replaces the present fractured and fragmented consciousness of the
human race.
Although Hindus concede that it may be too late to avoid drastic climate change
they consider “the whole world is one family”, and therefore encourage all to be
prepared to respond with compassion to the likely calamitous challenges such as
population displacement, food and water shortages, catastrophic weather and
rampant disease.292
4.4.5. Buddhism
Buddha did not directly address the issue of the human relationship with nature as
a separate subject. However, many of those involved in the ecology movement have
found inspiration and valuable parallels within the Buddhist tradition and many
Buddhists themselves have begun the process of extracting ecological wisdoms
from their tradition.293 Buddhism is completely averse to the idea that nature and all
created things exist for the benefit of humankind.294 Humankind is but one part of
the entire cosmic order and not in a position of dominance. Humans are just as
much subject to the natural order of the universe as any other form of sentient
being.295 “Buddhism is ecocentric rather than anthropocentric since it views humans
as an integral part of nature.”296 The Thai monk, Buddhadasa Bhikku once stated:
“The entire cosmos is a cooperative. The sun, the moon, and the stars live together
as a cooperative. The same is true for humans and animals, trees and the earth.
When we realize that the world is a mutual, interdependent, cooperative
Lynn and Ellie Whitney “Faith Based Statements on Climate Change”, June 2012 at
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/Faith%20Based%20Statements%20PDF%20for%20printing.pdf.
293
Ecodharma Centre: Radical Ecology Radical Dharma “Buddhism and Ecology at http://www.ecodharma.com/influencesarticles/buddhism-ecology.
294
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (PTY) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 132.
295
Ibid.
296
Ibid. See also Klas Sandell (ed) Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis (Sri Lanka Buddhist Publications Society, Kandy,
1987).
292
114
enterprise… then we can build a noble environment. If our lives are not based on
this truth, then we shall perish.”297 Applying this principle to the relationship between
humans and their environment, the implications are clear. Since no action is without
its reaction on every interconnected thing, whatever action we take has a
relationship with the environment and we need to consider that consequential
impact.298
The essence of Buddhist teaching lies in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble
Eightfold Path. The four noble truths are that there is suffering, there is a cause of
suffering, there can be emancipation from suffering and there is a way towards
emancipation from suffering. 299 The means of avoiding such suffering is within
reach if the Noble Eightfold Path is followed. The Path consists of right vision, right
thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and
right concentration. Right concentration, right mindfulness and right vision all
highlight the importance of an intense concentration on what one is doing at the
present moment, a mindfulness of the impact of such actions on those who are
affected by them, and a vision of the long term future.300 All conduct would thus
need to be considered in the light of the medium to long-term impacts it will produce.
The rights of future generations must be contemplated when considering these
perspectives. 301 Exploiting the earth’s resources for short-term advantage is a
definite contravention of these basic Buddhist teachings. 302 Right thought, right
action and right livelihood also open many perspectives on the pursuit of short-term
advantages at the cost of long-term damage.303 As thought is a precursor to action,
thought must be given to the future and future generations, before acting in a selfish
manner. The action that ensues must be related to such thoughtfulness and the
emphasis on right livelihood is very relevant to the millions of people today who
indulge in a wasteful lifestyle and the exploitation of earth resources when they
should be using those resources economically while thinking of the long-term
future.304
The Dalai Lama has summarised Buddhism’s principles relating to the
environment as follows:305
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (1906 – 1993) was an influential Thai ascetic-philosopher of the 20th century.
Ibid, 132.
299
Ibid, 116.
300
Ibid, 117.
301
Ibid.
302
Ibid.
303
Ibid.
304
Ibid.
305
Peter Scott Tree of Life: Buddhism and Protection of Nature Preface by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama of Tibet. (Buddhist
Perception of Nature, Hong Kong, 1987).
297
298
115
Destruction of nature and natural resources results from ignorance, greed and lack of
respect for the earth’s living things.
This lack of respect extends even to earth’s human descendants, the future generations who
will inherit a vastly degraded planet if world peace does not become a reality, and destruction
of the natural environment continues at the present rate.
Our ancestors viewed the earth as rich and bountiful, which it is. Many people in the past
also saw nature as inexhaustibly sustainable, which we now know is the case only if we care
for it.
It is not difficult to forgive destruction in the past which resulted from ignorance. Today
however we have access to more information, and it is essential that we examine ethically
what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming
generations. Clearly this is a pivotal generation.
Buddhism teaches that humanity does not have to search far and wide to gain
knowledge of what is right or wrong. This knowledge is latent within each individual.
All that is required in order to apply this to environmental protection is an internal
change of attitude. It is not sufficient to just correct the external environment.
There are numerous Buddhist environmental initiatives existing today. For
example, the Association of Buddhists for the Environment (ABE), founded in
Cambodia in 2005, is a network of Buddhist monks and nuns promoting
environmental protection. 306 ABE connects Buddhist clerics with ecology experts to
use local pagodas as centres of environmental education. The clerics are well
respected and their advocacy for environmental issues is influential. 307 Examples of
ABE projects include small-scale community projects such as compost heaps, tree
nurseries, and local water management systems. 308 The project also produces
educational material, including a documentary film, and manages a website to build
the network of conservation-minded Buddhists in the country.
309
ABE has
partnerships with the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) and the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).310
Buddhist monks in Thailand began to play an active role in protecting the
environment over the course of the 1990s. Known informally as environmentalist,
or ecology monks (phra nak anuraksa), they have felt compelled to address
environmental issues as part of their religious duty to help relieve suffering. 311
Resources on Faith, Ethics, and Public Life “Association of Buddhists for the Environment” at
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/organizations/association-of-buddhists-for-the-environment
307
Ibid.
308
Ibid.
309
Ibid.
310
Ibid.
311
“Thai Ecology Monks” The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale at
http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/buddhism/projects/thai_ecology/.
306
116
Seeing a direct connection between the root causes of suffering (greed, ignorance,
and hatred) and environmental destruction, ecology monks consider environmental
activism to be amenable to their traditional rituals and ceremonies.312 They draw
attention to environmental problems, raise awareness about the value of nature,
and inspire people to take part in conservation efforts. 313 For example, tree
ordination rituals (buat ton mai) are often performed - in which trees are blessed
and wrapped in saffron robes to signify their sacred status.314 There is also a wide
variety of other grassroots conservation initiatives, including planting ceremonies,
the creation of wildlife preserves and sacred community gardens, long-life
ceremonies for ecologically threatened sites or natural entities, and initiatives in
sustainable community development and natural farming.315 Ecology monks have
taken stands against deforestation, shrimp farming, dam and pipeline construction,
and the cultivation of cash-crops.316 Phrakhru Pitak, one of the most active ecology
monks, has formed an umbrella non-governmental organisation called Hag Muang
Nan Group (Love Nan Group) to coordinate the environmental activities of local
village groups, government agencies, and other NGOs in his home province of
Nan.317 As respected leaders of Thai society, monks have a crucial role to play in
transforming environmentally destructive attitudes and policies. Conservation
efforts of rural monks are becoming especially effective due to the importance of
the temple in Thai village life. 318 Because of these ecologically-minded abbots,
forest monasteries in Thailand protect some of the last remaining natural forests. 319
His Holiness, the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, the latest reincarnation in
a line of Tibetan spiritual leaders, leads more than one hundred monasteries spread
across the Himalayas and heads the Karma Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. 320
In 2009, the Karmapa asked the World Wildlife Fund organisation (WWF) to help
him establish a far-reaching program called Rangjung Khoryug Sungkyob Tsokpa,
usually simply called Khoryug, or “environment” in Tibetan.321 Khoryug is a nonsectarian association of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries dedicated to environmental
protection on the Buddhist principle of the interdependence of all sentient beings
and the Earth itself.322 His Holiness, the 17th Karmapa has stated: “Whatever it is
that I do, I want it to have a long term visible impact and for it to be practical. If I
312
Ibid.
Ibid.
314
Ibid.
315
Ibid.
316
Ibid.
317
Ibid.
318
Ibid.
319
Ibid.
320
World Wildlife Fund “Tibetan Monasteries at Work for the Environment” at http://worldwildlife.org/stories/tibetan-monasteriesat-work-for-the-environment.
321
Ibid.
322
Ibid.
313
117
have the opportunity, I would most like to restore the natural environment in the
Himalayas and Tibet, and to especially protect the forests, the water and wildlife of
this region.”323 The ultimate goal of the Khoryug program is to make monasteries
and nunneries in the Himalayas into environmental leaders and problem-solvers in
their own communities.324 With the help of WWF, the Karmapa has created a book
of environmental guidelines for Buddhist monasteries, centers, and communities. 325
The partnership has also produced 108 Things You Can Do To Save the
Environment, a set of guidelines for individual Buddhist practitioners that has been
translated into more than ten languages and adopted by Buddhist centers
worldwide.326 Khoryug also helps to improve the local Himalayan environment by
providing examples of climate change adaptation and environmental stewardship
through a range of projects such as solar power, organic farming, and rainwater
harvesting.327 Over 55 projects led by Khoryug monasteries address issues such as
climate change, forest degradation, and wildlife trade. The project has resulted in a
group of more than 100 senior monks and nuns with understanding of basic
environmental science and hands-on expertise in environmental management. The
Khoryug program is supported by WWF’s Sacred Earth program, which partners
with religious leaders and communities around the world to collaborate on a wide
range of environmental conservation initiatives. 328 Sacred Earth aims to tap into
ethical and spiritual ideals around the sacred value of Earth and its diversity to help
religious communities take action on watershed restoration, climate change
adaptation and mitigation, and wildlife protection.329
4.5. Interfaith partnerships for climate change
Although environmental and religious organisations have had very limited contact
since the start of the modern environmental movement, the 1980’s welcomed in
some positive interactions between the two, starting with the World Charter for
Nature in 1982.330 The Charter is of particular importance because for the first time
in history it was a universal document pronouncing every form of life to be unique
regardless of its worth to man.331 It also stressed the need for a moral code of action,
in which the teachings of the world’s religions have much to offer.332
323
Ibid.
Ibid.
325
Ibid.
326
Ibid.
327
Ibid.
328
Ibid.
329
Ibid.
330
See Appendix D of this thesis for full document.
331
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 262.
332
Ibid.
324
118
Interactions have increased in frequency and importance ever since, with
numerous international meetings, national networks of interreligious activism,
religiously
sponsored
environmental
advocacy
and
education
programs,
collaborations between religious and environmental groups, and grassroots
religious and environmental advocacy flourishing. 333 The increased activity and
commitment represented by the initiatives suggests that environmentalism is not
just a passing interest for religious groups.334 The timeline below demonstrates the
increasing capacity of religious groups and organisations to wield their power in an
effort to build a sustainable world. A more detailed discussion on several of these
important initiatives and partnerships will follow.
TABLE 1: TIMELINE OF RELIGIOUS INITIATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS ON
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY335
INITIATIVES
DESCRIPTION
World Charter for Nature,
1982
This
document
holds
particular
importance because for the first time in
history a universal document pronouncing
every form of life to be unique regardless
of its worth to man was created. It stressed
the need for a moral code of action in this
area and also introduced the need to refer
to religious teachings which have major
influences in framing moral codes of
communities and nations globally. When
read as a whole, the document serves as
an illustration of the sort of international
documentation that can be further
developed by inspirational contributions of
the world’s religions.
Worldwide Fund for Nature
(WWF) Conference in Assisi,
Italy, 1986
In the first major meeting of its kind,
representatives of five of the world’s major
faiths discussed strategies for helping
their communities to assist in protecting
the environment.
Assisi Declarations, 1986
The declarations were prepared at the 25th
anniversary of the Worldwide Fund for
Nature. The document initially drew upon
Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian and
Islamic teachings, and was later added to
by the Baha’i, Sikhs, and Jains. The Assisi
conference and the Declarations have
revealed to the public, international
lawyers and decision-makers the valuable
contribution
available
in
religious
repositories for strengthening principles,
concepts and practical conduct in the
environmental field.
333
Gary Gardner Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, WorldWatch Paper 164,
(Worldwatch Institute, US, 2002) 6.
334
Ibid, 21.
335
Ibid, 22. Note: This author has modified, enlarged and updated Table 2 “Religious Initiatives and Partnerships on Environment
and Sustainability” from Gardner’s 2002 paper.
119
Preserving and Cherishing
the Earth: An Appeal for Joint
Commitment in Science and
Religion, 1990
This appeal was issued by a Religious
Partnership for the Environment at a
Global Forum meeting in Moscow. The
body of the appeal states: We are now
threatened by self-inflicted, swiftly moving
environmental alterations about whose
long-term biological and ecological
consequences we are still painfully
ignorant - depletion of the protective
ozone
layer;
a
global
warming
unprecedented in the last 150 millennia;
the obliteration of an acre of forest every
second; the rapid-fire extinction of
species; and the prospect of a global
nuclear war which would put at risk most
of the population of the Earth. Individually
and cumulatively they represent a trap
being set for the human species, a trap we
are setting for ourselves. However
principled and lofty (or naive and shortsighted) the justifications may have been
for the activities that brought forth these
dangers, separately and together they
now imperil our species and many others.
We are close to committing what in
religious language is sometimes called
Crimes against Creation.
The
scientists
therefore,
urgently
appealed to the world religious community
to commit, in word and deed to preserve
the environment of the Earth. They
understand that what is regarded as
sacred is more likely to be treated with
care and respect and efforts to safeguard
and cherish the environment need to be
infused with a vision of the sacred.
World Scientists’ Warning to
Humanity, 1992
Some 1700 of the world’s leading
scientists, including the majority of Nobel
laureates in the sciences, issued this
appeal in November 1992. The appeal
stated that human beings and the natural
world are on a collision course and that if
human activities – which inflict harsh and
often irreversible damage on the
environment and on critical resources are
left unchecked – then the future that we
wish for will be seriously at risk.
The full Appeal can be found at Appendix
B at the conclusion of this thesis.
Parliament
of
World
Religions, 1993, 1999, 2004,
2009
Since 1993, the Parliament of the World’s
Religions has convened approximately
every five years in a major international
city.
It comes together to celebrate
diversity and harmony and to explore
religious and spiritual responses to critical
issues that confront humanity.
Declaration Towards a Global
Ethic, 1993
The Global Ethic was a project
spearheaded by Swiss theologian Hans
Küng and it emerged directly from the
global religious community. It was a
research initiative aimed at identifying
common ethical tenets of the world’s
religions, as a way of defining a globally
relevant ethical foundation appropriate in
an age of globalisation.
120
The full Declaration can be found at
Appendix C at the conclusion of this
thesis.
Religion,
Science
and
Environment
(RSE)
Symposia, 1995, 1997, 1999,
2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009
Ecumenical
Patriarch
Bartholomew
convened a series of shipboard symposia
focusing on regional water-related
environmental issues. The symposia
involved
scientists,
policymakers,
religious leaders, and journalists.
Summit on Religion and
Environment,
Windsor,
England, 1995
Hosted by Prince Phillip, leaders of nine
world religions, along with secular leaders,
gathered to discuss implementation plans
for religion-based conservation projects.
The conference resulted in the creation of
the Alliance of Religions and Conservation
(ARC).
Harvard
conferences
on
Religions of the World and
Ecology, 1996-98
800 scholars from a broad range of
religious traditions did research and
outreach work on the religion/ecology
connection. Nine volumes, each focusing
on a different tradition, were published.
The Forum on Religion and Ecology was
then created to continue the work.
World Faiths Development
Dialogue, London, 1998
A
collaborative
initiative
between
development institutions and nine world
religions was organized under the
leadership of the World Bank and the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The initiative
incorporated a spiritual voice into shaping
the policies and practices of human
development organisations.
World Council of Churches
Climate Change Programme,
1999
The WCC created a program to lobby
governments
and
international
organisations to fundamentally reorient
“the socioeconomic structures and
personal lifestyles” that have led to the
current climate change crisis.
Earth and Faith: A Book on
Reflections for Action – issued
by the United Nations
Environment
Programme
(UNEP), 2000
This eighty page book referred to a unique
long-standing collaboration between
UNEP and the Interfaith Partnership for
the Environment (IPE), a global network of
faith, traditions and organisations working
to bring together the forces of religion and
ecology. The book highlights critical
environmental issues and religious texts
relevant to environmental protection and
calls for “a new sense of our communion
with planet earth”. Through the use of
primary texts of religious traditions, it
presents, from various faith perspectives,
the theme of human responsibility to
protect the natural world. It also presents
projects, big and small, which can be
undertaken to help save the planet from
further ecological degradation.
The Millennium World Peace
Summit of Religious and
Spiritual Leaders, 2000
For the first time in history, religious and
spiritual leaders of the world’s diverse faith
traditions came together to discuss forging
a partnership of peace with the United
Nations. The goal was to build an
121
unprecedented
collaboration among
leaders of the world's diverse faith
traditions willing to commit to cooperation
in building peaceful societies. The
Commitment also included statements on
promoting the eradication of poverty and
assuming a shared responsibility for
expanding
access
to
education,
healthcare and an opportunity to achieve
a secure and sustainable livelihood. The
commitment pledged signatories to
educate their communities on the need to
make environmental protection a priority.
The full document can be found at
Appendix E at the conclusion of this
thesis.
The Earth Charter, 2000
This initiative was shaped and adopted
largely by civil society and local
government institutions rather than central
government. The Earth Charter is a
declaration of fundamental ethical
principles for the global community that
seeks “to establish a sound ethical
foundation for the emerging global society
and to help build a sustainable world.” It
promotes a respect for nature, diversity,
universal human rights, economic justice,
and a culture of peace.
The full Charter can be found at Appendix
F at the conclusion of this thesis.
In 2009, the Task Force on Religion,
Spirituality and Ethics was formed by the
Earth Charter Initiative. The aim was to
engage a broad range of individuals,
institutions, and organisations concerned
with religion, spirituality, and ethics to use
the Earth Charter in their efforts toward
creating a just, peaceful, and sustainable
future for the Earth Community.
The United Religions Initiative
Charter, 2000
The idea for URI came to California
Episcopal Bishop William Swing in 1993,
after an invitation by the United Nations to
host a large interfaith service in San
Francisco, marking the 50th anniversary
of the signing of the UN Charter. The
question became “If the nations of the
world are working together for peace
through the UN, then where are the
world’s religions?” The Charter was thus
developed through a four year global
process by several hundred women, men,
and youth representing a diverse array of
religions, spiritual paths and indigenous
traditions.
The URI Charter commits humanity “to
create cultures of peace, justice and
healing for the Earth and all living beings,”
and to “act from sound ecological
practices to protect and preserve the
Earth for both present and future
generations.”
Sacred Gifts for a Living
Planet Conference, Nepal,
2000
Organized by WWF and ARC, 11 major
religions, representing 4.5 billion people,
122
offer 26 conservation gifts to help improve
the environment.
International Seminar on
Religion,
Culture,
and
Environment, Tehran, June
2001
Sponsored by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the conference
discussed the importance of fighting
environmental degradation. The seminar
culminated in the signing of the Tehran
Declaration,
which
reaffirmed
commitments made at the Millennium
World Peace Summit.
Oxford Declaration on Global
Warming, July 2002
Calling climate change “a moral, ethical,
and religious issue,” scientists and
Christian leaders from six continents
called on Christian denominations,
churches, and organisations to educate
about climate change, reduce church
buildings’ impact on climate, and lobbied
officials to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Common Declaration on
Environmental Ethics of Pope
John Paul II and the
Ecumenical
Patriarch
Bartholomew
I
of
Constantinople, 2002
This declaration was issued by Pope John
Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew I of Constantinople. It voiced
concern
regarding
“the
negative
consequences for humanity and for all
creation resulting from the degradation of
basic resources such as water, air and
land - brought about by an economic and
technological progress which does not
recognise and take into account its limits.”
The declaration invites all men and
women of good will to ponder the
importance of ethical goals and to
“acknowledge the diversity of situations
and responsibilities in the work for a better
world environment.” Although it is not
expected that every person and every
institution must assume the same burden,
it does state that everyone has a part to
play. However, for justice and charity to be
upheld the most affluent societies must
carry the greater burden, and a greater
sacrifice is demanded of them than can be
offered by the poor. It also states
“religions, governments and institutions
are faced by many different situations; but
on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity
all of them can take on some tasks, some
part of the shared effort.” The declaration
affirms that it is not too late to steer the
earth toward our children’s future as long
as we start now.
Minute on Global Warming
and Climate Change – World
Council of Churches, 2008
“Be stewards of God’s creation” is the very
first sentence of the minute. It emphasizes
that humanity is not the master of the
earth, but has been entrusted with
stewardship with a duty to care
responsibly for the integrity of creation. It
states that climate change is both an
environmental issue and a matter of
justice and churches and religious
communities can take key leadership
roles in addressing the problem. They
must find ways to challenge and motivate
each other in order to make lasting
changes in lifestyles and economic
pursuits. It also states that although many
churches, ecumenical organisations and
123
specialized ministries have already
started to take action concerning climate
change, it urgently calls the churches to
strengthen their moral code and
encourages them to reinforce their
advocacy towards governments, NGO’s,
the scientific community and the business
sector to intensify cooperation in response
to climate change. It also calls for a
profound change in the relationship
towards nature, economic policies,
consumption,
production
and
technological patterns. The minute seeks
to promote the exploration of interreligious dialogue and inter-cultural
avenues for cooperation and constructive
response, ensuring a better stewardship
of creation.
The
Uppsala
Interfaith
Climate Manifesto, 2008
Religious leaders from around the world
gathered in Uppsala to call for effective
leadership and action in view of the global
threat to the climate. The leaders urged
governments
and
international
organisations to prepare and agree upon
a comprehensive climate strategy and
also urged political and religious leaders
to bear responsibility for the future of the
planet - and the living conditions and
habitat preservation of new generations.
The leaders stated that the climate crisis
is a fundamental spiritual question for the
survival of humanity on planet Earth and
challenged humanity to review the values,
philosophies, beliefs and moral concepts
which have shaped and driven behaviours
and
informed
our
dysfunctional
relationship with our natural environment.
The leaders committed themselves to
taking and sharing responsibility for
providing moral leadership within the
various faith traditions by offering the gift
of the various faiths as a source of
empowerment for sustainable lifestyles
and patterns of consumption.
Interfaith
Declaration
on
Climate
Change
and
Religious Traditions Call to
Climate Action, 2009
The representatives of diverse religious
traditions gathered on the International
Day of Peace (September 21st, 2009) to
reflect on humanity’s collective response
to the climate crisis. This multi-religious
gathering called on all faith communities
to join the religious leaders in their
commitment and also to persuade world
leaders to take urgent action to stop and
reverse the adverse impact of climate
change. They also urged that the natural
world itself be considered a partner at the
table and not a commodity to be used
solely for human pleasure or gain.
The Religious Traditions Call to Action
was inspired by the Interfaith Declaration
on Climate Change.
Both documents can be found at Appendix
G of this thesis.
The World Religions Summit,
2010
The Summit was the sixth in a series of
interfaith gatherings associated with the
annual G8 meetings. It brought together
more than 80 participants from all of the
world’s major faiths. The meeting and its
124
output was directed principally at the
leaders of the “Group of 8” countries
because they represent the nations that
have the most power to effect change in
the world. His Holiness Aram I, of the
Armenian Orthodox Church stated: “We
have to tell the G8 and the world that we
religions not only speak together but that
we are working together to build
communities of integrated dialogue.”
Halki
Summit
on
Global
Responsibility and Environmental
Sustainability, 2012
The Summit was a gathering of activists,
scientists, journalists, business leaders,
theologians, and academics engaging
working across intellectual boundaries to
bring the global environmental discussion
to a new and richer place. The belief that
no effort can be successful without a
fundamental change in values (as
manifested in ethics, spirituality, and
religion) was at the heart of the
discussion.
4.5.1. The United Nations World Charter for Nature
The United Nations World Charter for Nature can perhaps be seen as the catalyst
behind many of the present contributions of the world’s religions in environmental
affairs. The Charter itself was an important expression of the intent among the
member states of the United Nations to achieve a more harmonious and sustainable
relationship between humanity and the rest of the biosphere.336 A careful reading of
the Charter affirms that it was intended to exert political and moral, but not legal,
force on member states. 337 In the preamble, the General Assembly embraced
“principles of conservation” by which “all human conduct affecting nature is to be
guided and judged.”338The “Implementation” section of the Charter, in particular,
addresses the environmental responsibilities not only of states, but also of
international organisations, corporations, groups and even individuals – thus the
goals of the Charter are intended for all humankind, not merely for the political
organisations of the world. 339 The document is therefore a valuable guide for
continued discussion and further action within religious circles.
Harold W Wood Jr. “The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The developing Nations’ Initiative to Establish Protections
for the Environment” 12 Ecology L.Q. (1884-1985) 990.
337
Ibid, 982.
338
Ibid.
339
Ibid, 981. The “Implementation” section directs countries to implement eleven types of activities to carry out the principles of
the document. The Charter encourages states to: (1) enact and support domestic and international law; (2) develop ecological
education; (3) increase public participation in planning; (4) set up funding and administrative programs; (5) support scientific
research and the dissemination of research; (6) implement environmental monitoring; (7) assess the impact of military activities;
(8) encourage cooperation among states, international organisations, individuals, groups and corporations; (9) adopt
administrative regulations for both domestic and foreign application; (10) allow citizen redress for environmental damage; and
(11) stress the need for individuals to meet their environmental duties. While these eleven categories are comprehensive, none
set forth more than a general admonition that all nations should strive to operate in a fashion which minimises the adverse
impact of development on nature. The Charter allows decision-making entities within each state to select an appropriate mix of
social, economic, and political methods to achieve the goals of the Charter.
336
125
4.5.2. The Assisi Declarations
In 1986, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) conference was held in Assisi, Italy.
A landmark in the field of international religious environmental activity, it was hosted
by HRH Prince Philip (then President of WWF International) who issued an invitation
to five leaders of the five major world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism,
Islam and Judaism) to meet and discuss how the faiths could help save the natural
world.340 The invitation aptly stated: “Come, proud of your own tradition, but humble
enough to learn from others”. The meeting was purposely held in Assisi, Italy, the
birthplace of St. Francis, the Catholic Saint of Ecology.341 It was a unique occasion
involving some of the world’s leading environmental and conservation bodies, who
for the first time, sat down with the world’s major faiths to discuss how they could all
work together. 342 The words of welcome by Father Lanfranco Serrini of the
Franciscan Order (OFM) encapsulated the reason for the meeting: “Each religion
will celebrate the dignity of nature and the duty of every person to live harmoniously
within the natural world. We are convinced of the inestimable value of our respective
traditions and of what they can offer to re-establish ecological harmony; but, at the
same time, we are humble enough to desire to learn from each other. The very
richness of our diversity lends strength to our shared concern and responsibility for
our Planet Earth.”343
From this important conference, key statements by the five faiths arose.
Appropriately named “The Assisi Declarations,” a broad outline of each religion’s
distinctive traditions and approach to the care of nature was created. Exerts from
each of the five major religions are cited below:344
BUDDHIST: “…disregard for the natural inheritance of human beings has brought about the
danger that now threatens the peace of the world as well as the chance to live of endangered
species. Such destruction of the environment and the life depending upon it is a result of
ignorance, greed and disregard for the richness of all living things. This disregard is gaining
great influence. If peace does not become a reality in the world and if the destruction of the
environment continues as it does today, there is no doubt that future generations will inherit
a dead world;”
HINDU: "What is needed today is to remind ourselves that nature cannot be destroyed
without mankind ultimately being destroyed itself. With nuclear weapons representing the
ultimate pollutant, threatening to convert this beautiful planet of ours into a scorched cinder
unable to support even the most primitive life forms, mankind is finally forced to face its
340
Alliance of Religions and Conservation Website at <http://www.arcworld.org/about_ARC.htm>.
Ibid. St Francis was very sensitive to the concept of harmony with the natural order.
342
Ibid.
343
Ibid.
344
The Assisi Declarations at http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/THE%20ASSISI%20DECLARATIONS.pdf.
341
126
dilemma. Centuries of rapacious exploitation of the environment have finally caught up with
us and a radically changed attitude towards nature is now not a question of spiritual merit or
condescension, but of sheer survival.” … “Let us declare our determination to halt the
present slide towards destruction, to rediscover the ancient tradition of reverence for all life
and, even at this late hour, to reverse the suicidal course upon which we have embarked.
Let us recall the ancient Hindu dictum – The Earth is our mother, and we are all her children;"
JEWISH: "now, when the whole world is in peril, when the environment is in danger of being
poisoned and various species, both plant and animal, are becoming extinct, it is our...
responsibility to put the defense of nature at the very center of our concern.” … “Our
ancestor, Abraham inherited his passion for nature from Adam. The later rabbis never forgot
it. Some twenty centuries ago they told the story of two men who were out on the water in a
rowboat. Suddenly one of them started to saw under his feet. He maintained that it was his
right to do whatever he wished with the place that belonged to him. The other answered him
that they were in the rowboat together; the hole that he was making would sink both of them
(Vayikra Rabbah 4:6).
CHRISTIAN: “Many are the causes of the ecological disaster which mankind faces today.
Without pretending to be complete, the following should be singled out: uncontrolled use of
technology for immediate economic growth, with little or no consideration for the planet’s
resources and their possible renewal; disregard for just and peaceful relations among
peoples; destruction of cultures and environments during war; ill-considered exploitation of
natural resources by consumer-orientated societies; unmastered and unregulated
urbanisation; and the exclusive preoccupation with the present without any regard for the
future quality of life;"
MUSLIM: “People as God's trustees "are responsible for maintaining the unity of His
creation, the integrity of the Earth, its flora and fauna, its wildlife and natural environment".
… “The notions of unity, trusteeship and accountability should not be reduced to matters of
personal piety; they must guide all aspects of their life and work. Shariah should not be
relegated just to issues of crime and punishment; it must also become the vanguard for
environmental legislation. We often say that Islam is a complete way of life, by which it is
meant that our ethical system provides the bearings for all our actions. Yet our actions often
undermine the very values we cherish. Often while working as scientists or technologists,
economists or politicians, we act contrary to the environmental dictates of Islam. We must
imbibe these values into our very being. We must judge our actions by them. They furnish
us with a world-view which enables us to ask environmentally appropriate questions, draw
up the right balance sheet of possibilities, properly weigh the environmental costs and
benefits of what we want, what we can do within the ethical boundaries established by God,
without violating the rights of His other creations.”
By 1995, the original five faiths had been joined by four others, the Baha’is, Daoists,
Jains and Sikhs. As the work had grown considerably, a new independent secular
127
organisation, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) was created.345 It
was the first time an organisation existed to link the secular worlds of conservation
and ecology with the faith worlds of the major religions.346
By 2000, ARC had been approached by the Shinto and Zoroastrian religions.
They became members in November 2000. 347 This brought the total of faith
members to eleven, with ARC working in just under 60 countries. 348 By November
of the same year, ARC and WWF, joined by conservation bodies, the World Bank,
and numerous foundations, celebrated the first 26 “Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet”
in Bhaktapur, Nepal.349 This event placed ARC solidly in the international arena and
its work tripled within one year. The meetings also led to a scheme by which
religions would become more actively involved in socially responsible investing of
their stocks and shares.350
In 2008, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) launched an
international programme in partnership with the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) – the “Seven Year Plans for Generational Change”. The
programme is designed to help all key religions establish major new initiatives as a
contribution towards protecting the natural environment and addressing climate
change.351 The seven key areas include:352 (1) Assets: land, forests, seas, financial
investments, purchasing and property; (2) Education and Young People; (3)
Wisdom and Guidance; (4) Lifestyles; (5) Media and Advocacy; (6) Partnerships,
Eco-twinning and Creating own Environment Departments; and (7) Celebration. 353
There have been numerous other projects and conferences since the first
meeting at Assisi and this continued commitment has indicated the scale of faith
action for the environment has grown immensely. Martin Palmer has stated: “Today,
thanks to that first Assisi event, every major religion takes ecology seriously and is
involved in environmental projects, and the world’s religions are increasingly
recognised as playing a pivotal role in protecting the natural world.” 354
345
The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) website at <http://www.arcworld.org/about_ARC.asp>.
The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) website at <http://www.arcworld.org/about.asp?pageID=2>.
347
Ibid.
348
Ibid.
349
Ibid. The Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet is a special term of praise and recognition for major significant new projects by the
world’s religions. It was termed by WWF and ARC as every religion believes that the gift of life itself is sacred: we do not own it,
but we have responsibility to care for it. The projects themselves range from climate change to marine conservation, from
sustainable forest management to environmental advocacy. Some examples include restoring sacred forests in Orissa by
Hindus; Jains building a sustainable community in an earthquake village; a Cairo rubbish dump converted into a public park;
Hindus pledge to clean up the sacred Bagmati River; and many others.
350
Ibid.
351
The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) website at <http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=270>.
352
Ibid.
353
Alliance of Religions and Conservation Seven Year Plan leaflet at
<http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/ARC%20UNDP%20Seven%20Year%20Plan%20leaflet.pdf>. Not all of the seven areas will
be relevant to all faiths but the Plans should reflect particular strengths and interests of each faith community and each plan will
be unique. For example, Mongolian Buddhists are adopting Eight Year Plans, because it is a more auspicious number; faith
retreat centres are looking at food sourcing; and Lutherans and Shinto have explored their impacts on the forests in particular.
354
See supra note 17.
346
128
4.5.3. Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE)
Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) was established in 1994. The
enterprise grew from His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I’s
growing concern over the declining state of the earth’s environment, particularly its
marine waters. His core belief is that scientists and clergy must work in harmony if
further degradation is to be avoided.355 In order to promote this belief, RSE arranges
symposia, which take place afloat, bringing the participants directly to endangered
bodies of water.356 The aims include: raising public awareness regarding the plight
of the world’s waters; encouraging clergy and scientists in specific areas to work
together to strengthen existing projects on environmental protection; to persuade
national and international bodies to support new projects financially; to deepen and
clarify theologies within diverse religions and to develop the scientific and
sociological analysis so that both religionists and scientists have a firm and growing
basis for their cooperation, mutual support and mutual education in the
environmental realm; and to improve dialogue regarding connections between
religion and science.357 A series of eight sea-borne symposia have already taken
place in order to fulfill these aims. The first symposium, held in 1995, sailed through
the Aegean Sea to the Island of Patmos. It brought together approximately 200
scientists, religious leaders, philosophers, economists, artists and policy makers to
examine the nexus of religion and the environment. 358 Representatives of the
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, Sikh, Zoroastrian and Baha’i
participated in the discussions. This event was an important step in the long-running
effort to find common ground among religious and scientific leaders who share
similar concerns about the environment, but whose historical antagonism has often
blocked collaboration.359 Symposium II, held in 1997, took place on the Black Sea.
The aim was to better understand local issues and to engage in a dialogue on their
wider implications.360 All the Patriarchs from the Black Sea region were present.
Leaders from the region included presidents, vice-presidents and ministers of the
environment, while prominent scientists brought expertise at local, regional and
international levels.361 As a consequence of the symposium, plans were developed
for expanding and deepening the understanding of clergy on environmental
problems and solutions.362 Symposium III, held in 1999, traveled down the Danube
What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at <http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf>.
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at <http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=29>.
357
What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf.
358
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?pcatid=50&catid=88.
359
Ibid.
360
What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf.
361
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?pcatid=50&catid=87.
362
Ibid.
355
356
129
River, the source of many of the Black Sea’s environmental ills. 363 Entitled "The
Danube - a network for a living river", this endeavour sought to link the faith
communities and environmentalists with each other, from the river source, across
Europe and down to the Danube Delta. Symposium IV, held in 2002 took place in
the Adriatic Sea and addressed the ethical aspects of the environmental crisis. It
clearly stated “the environment is not just an object of study or an area of managerial
concern. It is a space where millions of people live and share the responsibility of
an extraordinary heritage. The need to cultivate a set of ecological values and foster
the emergence of the ecological consciousness of humanity is becoming more and
more urgent.”364 In the course of the symposium, religious leaders, and participants
were asked to propose ideas as to how religion may inspire humanity towards an
ecological ethos. 365 At the end of the symposium, Pope John Paul II and the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew signed the ‘Venice Commitment’, a statement
of the need for ‘an environmental code of ethics,’ ahead of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development.366 Symposium V, held in 2003, took place in the Baltic
Sea. The intention of this symposium was to generate practical initiatives that
support on-going efforts to protect the Baltic Sea and apply lessons learned from
other environmentally threatened parts of the world. 367 Symposium VI, held in 2006,
considered that international cooperation to combat climate change is the greatest
challenge ahead for the global community and preservation of the integrity of the
Amazon ecology must be a priority focus. The RSE symposium coincided with talks
in Sao Paolo between soya traders and major UK food companies, which finally
delivered a deal to halt the destruction. The Brazilian grain exporters' association,
which includes the entire major multinationals, committed itself to "seeking to
reconcile environmental conservation with economic development, through
responsible and sustainable use of Brazil's natural resources". 368 A two-year
moratorium on crops from newly deforested land was announced. Symposium VII,
held in 2007, took place in the Arctic. Climate change was foremost on the agenda
and the participants visited areas where the impacts of melting ice are already
clear.369 At the closing ceremony His All Holiness offered a clear message to all:
“Time is short. The ice of the Arctic is shrinking at a frightening pace according to
the scientists and Greenlanders. If all of the ice in Greenland melts the
consequences for Greenland and the rest of the world could be devastating. We
What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf.
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?pcatid=50&catid=85.
365
Ibid.
366
What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf.
367
Ibid.
368
The Brazilian rainforest is the world's biggest carbon sink and a vital defence against the escalating problem of climate
change.
369
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=170&pcatid=162.
363
364
130
must act together and act now.” 370 Symposium VIII, held in 2009 traveled the
Mississippi River.371 The Mississippi Basin encapsulates many of the climate issues
being faced by communities around the world. With a total length of 3778 kilometres
and the third largest drainage basin on earth (exceeded only by the Amazon and
the Congo), it is one of the world’s most polluted water courses.372
These symposia are groundbreaking as they follow the path of pollution from the
source to the point of impact, providing a real sense of the interconnectedness of
the world’s waters and all its ecosystems.373 By bringing participants to the places
where environmental problems are most acute and focusing on practical remedies
rather than theoretical discussions, RSE symposia have inspired positive change
through collective action. They have reached out across different faiths and
denominations, to reveal the wisdom of diverse theological traditions, as well as a
common imperative to protect the natural world. 374 In addition to communicating to
a vast audience the issues related to protecting and improving the environment,
each symposium enables the formation of new strategic partnerships and the
strengthening of existing ones.375 The symposia introduce new ideas and provide
broadened horizons for consideration of the many different areas of work and
interest. They also offer the opportunity for participants to establish an efficient
networking scheme that enables new ideas, collaborations and projects to emerge.
4.5.4. The Forum on Religion and Ecology (FORE)
The Forum on Religion and Ecology (FORE) is the largest international multireligious project of its kind. It is engaged in exploring religious worldviews, texts,
ethics, and practices in order to further an understanding of the hugely complex
nature of environmental concerns.376 The objectives are to create a new academic
field of study that will implicate environmental policy. The forum is also helping to
identify the ethical dimensions by which the religions of the world can respond to
the growing environmental crisis. 377 The work was initiated by John Grim 378 and
Mary Evelyn Tucker379 with a series of conferences on religion and ecology from
370
Ibid.
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at <http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=196&pcatid=184>.
372
Ibid.
373
Religion, Science and the Environment Website at <http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=29>.
374
Ibid.
375
Ibid.
376
Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at <http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html >.
377
Ibid.
378
Professor Grim is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where he has appointments in the School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. He has taught
courses in Native American and Indigenous religions, religion and ecology, and mysticism in the world’s religions.
379
Professor Tucker is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where she has appointments in the school of
Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. She is also
Research Associate at the Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies at Harvard and a member of the Interfaith Partnership for
the Environment at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). She served on the International Earth Charter Drafting
Committee from 1997-2000 and is a member of the Earth Charter International Council.
371
131
1996-1998 at Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions. The conferences
brought together the most diverse spectrum of individuals and institutions ever
convened to discuss the topic, and the participants included in abundance of 800
environmentalists and international scholars of the world’s religions.
380
The
conferences produced ten volumes on environmentalism from the perspective of
major religious traditions. Several of these have been translated into other
languages, including the volumes on Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism into
Chinese. The Hinduism and Jain volumes are available in India. 381 They were also
noteworthy for their extensive engagement of people outside of religion and
religious studies. Scientists, ethicists, educators, and public policy makers all took
part in the conference dialogues. The Forum recognises that religions need to be in
dialogue with other disciplines (e.g. science, economics, education, public policy)
so that they may seek solutions to both global and local environmental problems. 382
Emerging dialogue has already recognised that in seeking long-term environmental
sustainability, there is clearly a partition between contemporary problems regarding
the environment and traditional religions as resources.383 Traditional religions are
not equipped to give specific guidance in dealing with complex issues such as
climate change, desertification, or deforestation. However, certain perspectives and
values from the world’s religions are not only useful but perhaps even vital for
environmental ethics.384
There have been many major accomplishments of the Forum over the past ten
years. For example, it has created a whole new field of study in religion and ecology
which has been recognised by the American Academy of Religion, and represented
in twelve major articles in the new Encyclopedia of Religion.385 It is also growing
through the peer-viewed academic journal Worldviews. From the Forum a new form
of religious environmentalism has emerged, represented by both statements and
action of the world’s religions regarding the moral nature of the ecological crisis. 386
This is now depicted in a film called Renewal, which highlights eight case studies of
religious engagement with environmental issues in the United States. Another major
accomplishment of the Forum is the creation of a world class international website
on religion and ecology, based at Yale.387 It is designed for research, education, and
outreach and contains introductory articles on the world’s religions and ecology as
380
Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at <http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html >.
Ibid.
382
Ibid.
383
Ibid.
384
Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html (accessed on
21 May 2009).
385
Ibid.
386
Ibid.
387
Ibid.
381
132
well as annotated bibliographies for all published monographs and articles in
English on this topic. It has gathered the statements of religious leaders and
organisations on the environmental crisis and features events, conferences, and
news reports.388
The Forum on Religion and Ecology believes the religions of the world can
develop a notable ethical premise to trigger a more sustainable ecological culture. 389
The deep values, historical perspectives, and aesthetic awareness of spirituality and
religious traditions are integral to encouraging dialogue and creating a new shared
pathway for nature and humans, interlinking self-interest with common interest to
prompt and motivate humanity.390 Harold Attridge, dean of Yale Divinity School has
stated: “The work of the Forum on Religion and Ecology underscores how much
common ground exists between the faith and environmental communities. These
synergies have tremendous potential toward realizing proper stewardship of God’s
creation.” 391 James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies has similarly stated: “The religions of the world have a key
role to play in helping to moderate values and inspire action for environmental
protection, restoration, and renewal.”392
4.5.5. Parliament of World Religions and Declaration towards a Global Ethic
The Parliament of the World’s Religions was held in Chicago in 1993 with
approximately 6000 participants from a wide spectrum of the world’s religious and
spiritual communities attending.393 Each participant was challenged to think critically
and holistically about the role of religious and spiritual communities in the quest for
inspired solutions to the world’s most urgent problems. It was at this time that
approximately 200 signatories took the decisive step to sign Küng’s document,
“Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration,” agreeing that it represented an
initial effort for a world direly in need of ethical consensus.394 As Küng explained,
388
Ibid.
Donald Lehr Facing Environmental Crisis, Forum on Religion and Ecology Seeks Transformation Through Language and
Action 10th Anniversary Press Release (November 12, 2008) at
http://google.yale.edu/search?site=Forum_Religion&q=Harold+Attridge&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=
UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxyreload=1&client=bluesite_frontend&proxystylesheet=bluesite_frontend&submit=search (accessed 3
June 2009).
390
Ibid.
391
Donald Lehr Facing Environmental Crisis, Forum on Religion and Ecology Seeks Transformation Through Language and
Action 10th Anniversary Press Release (November 12, 2008) at
http://google.yale.edu/search?site=Forum_Religion&q=Harold+Attridge&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=
UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxyreload=1&client=bluesite_frontend&proxystylesheet=bluesite_frontend&submit=search (accessed 3
June 2009).
392
Ibid.
393
It should be noted that although attendees represented a total of 55 nations and some 60 religions, 57 per cent of the people
who attended came from the United States. Therefore, the largest religious representation came from Christianity (followed by
Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, and Islam). Refer Jon P Bloch A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for
a Parliament of the World Religions, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, December 2008 612-627.
394
Joel Beversluis “The Parliaments and the Quest for a Global Ethic” in Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith
Guide to Religion and Spirituality, edited by Joel Beversluis (New World Library, CA, 2000).
389
133
the aim of the document was to provide a statement of the minimal ethical
consensus shared by all the world’s religions.395 As such, it is necessarily general,
non-partisan, and non-doctrinal.396
The Declaration itself identifies four essential affirmations as shared principles
essential to a global ethic: (1) Affirming respect for all life, (2) economic justice and
solidarity, (3) tolerance and truthfulness, and (4) equal rights and partnership
between men and women.397
The declaration states:398
“We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we
have respect for the community of living beings, for people, animals, and plants, and for the
preservation of Earth, the air, water and soil. We take individual responsibility for all we do.
All our decisions, actions, and failures to act have consequences.”
The document also maintains that, while the world is in turmoil, the possibility of
sustainable peace and order does exist, and has always existed within a common
set of core values found in the teachings of the world’s religions, and that these can
form the basis of a global ethic:399
“We affirm that there is an irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families
and communities, for races, nations, and religions. There already exist ancient guidelines
for human behaviour which are found in the teachings of the religions of the world and which
are the condition for a sustainable world order.”400
The declaration imparts that law, policy and other governance systems will be
unsuccessful in sustaining human rights unless they are supported by an ethic. “A
better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws, prescriptions, and
conventions alone.”401
“We recall the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. What it
formally proclaimed on the level of ‘rights’ we wish to confirm and deepen here from the
perspective of an ethic: The full realisation of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the
inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans, and the necessary solidarity and
interdependence of all humans with each other.”402
395
Ibid.
Ibid.
397
Parliament of the World’s Religions Declaration toward a Global Ethic (4 September 1993, Chicago) at
http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2009).
398
Ibid.
399
Stephen J McKenzie Comparative Futures: Notes on a Methodology for the Study of Sustainability, Religion and Global Ethics
(Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics 12th Annual Conference, 28-30 September 2005, Adelaide) at
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/gig/aapae05/documents/mckenzie.pdf.
400
Ibid, as quoted from Declaration toward a Global Ethic.
401
Ibid.
402
Ibid.
396
134
The emphasis of the declaration is therefore on the initial development and
acceptance of an ethic, rather than on the development, agreement and
enforcement of policies and regulations to enforce particular aspects of that ethic.403
The authors note, “This ethic provides no direct solution for all the immense
problems of the world, but it does supply the moral foundation for a better individual
and global order. A vision which can lead women and men away from despair and
society away from chaos.”
404
The document concludes by calling for “a
transformation of consciousness,” on the basis of which men and women can work
together to determine the practical meaning of these principles.405
The year 2001, in particular, was an important highpoint in the development
of the Global Ethic theme. At the highest political level, under the initiative of the UN
General Secretary Kofi Annan, it found entry into the agenda of the United Nations
as a new paradigm of international politics. 406 After the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, people the world over have become staunch believers that a
“clash of civilisations” must be avoided at all costs.407 Intercultural understanding
has consequently become a need of the highest political urgency.408 UN General
Secretary Kofi Annan on convoking a "Group of Eminent Persons", which included
Hans Küng, declared: "The UN Dialogue of Cultures represents a new paradigm of
international relations, no longer based on the assumption that diversity constitutes
a threat, but rather founded on the realisation that diversity is an integral component
of growth and progress ... When war is born initially in the minds of men, then the
conviction that diversity constitutes a threat represents the seed of war."409 The aim
of the expert group was to identify the principles for a new paradigm of international
relations characterized by dialogue and understanding on the basis of values shared
across cultural divisions, or in other words, on the basis of a Global Ethic. 410 The
report of the group was published under the title: "Crossing the Divide: Dialogue
among Civilisations."411 And on 9 November 2001, the General Assembly passed a
resolution titled "Global Agenda for the Dialogue among Civilisations." In that
resolution nine articles describe in detail the goals, the principles and the
participants in this dialogue. In a second part, a global agenda and a comprehensive
403
Ibid.
Ibid.
Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration, Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions (CPWR) at
http://www.ourtask.org/pub/strategies/pdfs/spiritual/CPWR-Ethic.pdf.
406
Global Ethic Foundation for Inter-cultural and Inter-religious Research, Education and Encounter website at
http://www.weltethos.org/index-en.php.
407
Ibid.
408
Ibid.
409
Ibid.
410
Ibid.
411
Crossing the Divide: Dialogue among Civilizations This report of the “Group of Eminent Persons” for the U.N. Dialogue among
Civilization (School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, 2001).
404
405
135
plan of action are laid down. 412 Alongside the UN Resolution and the report
"Crossing the Divide", the Global Ethic theme has succeeded in making itself known
at the highest levels of international politics.
Although the Global Ethic Declaration has so far met with some success, it has
also met with some criticisms along the way. Some observers, particularly those
who picketed the Parliaments of the World’s Religions, both in 1993 and 1999, were
concerned that the Parliament’s underlying significance was its pursuit of a
convergence of beliefs into one world religion, which for many is an apocalyptic
scenario. 413 Others associated the Parliament with the beginnings of one world
religion and a one-world government, via the United Nations or a United Religions
Organisation.414 Various protesters were merely asserting their own set of beliefs.
For example, one sign in Cape Town argued that the only “global ethic” is the
Qur’an, while another quoted the Bible as the only Word of God.415 However, as
Beversluis states, these protests were generally ignoring the organisers’ intentions
and the evidence, as most participants indicated a healthy respect for the
uniqueness and diversity of religions and would not have been there if their religious
identities or sacred texts were been threatened in any way. 416
Beversluis has written that: “although some religions and individuals do affirm
the convergence of religions or believe in a common spiritual destiny, the
presentation of these concepts was neither a goal of the Parliaments nor an
overarching voice there. Organizers took pains to avoid the appearance of that
agenda, and the interfaith movement in general is clearly leaning towards the goal
of understanding and appreciation of diversity. Likewise, while issues of global
policies and responsibilities were quite apparent, many people also affirmed the
greater effectiveness of local and regional efforts for the resolution of those
problems.”417
In clarifying the intent of the Declaration, Küng prudently stated what it is not
meant to be as well as what it is meant to be:418
From the beginning, it was clear that a global ethic does not mean a new global ideology, or
even an attempt to arrive at one uniform religion. The call for a global ethic does not aim to
replace the supreme ethical demands of each individual religion with an ethical minimalism.
Nor does [it] aim to invent a new morality and then impose it on the various religions from
outside (and even from the ‘West’). It simply aims to make known what religions in West and
412
See <http://www.un.org/documents/ares566e.pdf>.
Joel Beversluis “The Parliaments and the Quest for a Global Ethic” in Sourcebook of the World’s Religions: An Interfaith
Guide to Religion and Spirituality, Joel Beversluis (ed) (New World Library, California, 2000).
414
Ibid.
415
Ibid.
416
Ibid.
417
Ibid.
418
Hans Küng (ed.) Yes to a Global Ethic, Voices from Religion and Politics (Continuum, New York, 1996) p 2.
413
136
East, North and South already hold in common…In short, the ‘Declaration toward a Global
Ethic’ seeks to emphasize the minimal ethic which is absolutely necessary for human
survival. It is not directed against anyone, but invites all, believers and also non-believers,
to adopt this ethic and live in accordance with it.
Another controversy arose out of the fact that the word “God” did not appear in the
Declaration – although this was in order to avoid Judeo-Christian bias. Instead there
was reference to “Ultimate Reality”.
419
This omission led to deep-seated
dissatisfaction from Christian conservatives who are opposed to a pluralistic
religious orientation. The conservatives see the Parliament of World Religions as a
serious threat to the global future of humankind. Gary Kah, for example, has
stated:420
“God, of course, has already given us His “global ethics.” These commandments for living
are clearly laid out in the Bible (Exodus 20:1-17 and Mark 12:28-31). Unfortunately, as
evidenced by the Parliament of World Religions, man would rather create his own set of
rules catering to his personal wants and desires than submit to God’s authority. The Book
of Revelation warns us of a seductive one-world religious/political system that would emerge
in the last days. According to Revelation 17:13 the leaders of this Satanic system will give
“their power and authority” to the beast, who will do everything within his power to oppose
the living God and His true followers. Based on Jesus’ words in Mathew 24, it appears that
this deception will have an outer appearance of Christianity—acting in the name of Christ,
but not being of Christ.”
Yet another issue arose by those who saw the entire process of creating a global
ethic as primarily Western in essence. Dr Aziza Alhibri stated: “This is a document
produced in the West, using Western academic categories, through a Western
Committee process”.421 In response to this, John Hick422 has commented that in this
first stage of the search for a global ethic, rather than getting the peoples of other
cultures to debate the Western draft, agreeing or disagreeing with it as the only
document on the table, we should say: “Here is the kind of draft that comes naturally
to us in the industrialized West. What kind of draft comes naturally to you, and to
you, and to you? And then the next stage beyond this should be to bring a plurality
of drafts together and see what comes out of the interaction between them.”423 It is
therefore a matter of choosing to focus on what can be done collectively, rather than
419
Jon P Bloch A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions in
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, 2008, 616.
420
The New World Religion – Part VII The Interfaith Agenda at http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/newage/NA1W1299.pdf .
421
Jon P Bloch A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions in
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, 2008, 616.
422
Professor John Harwood Hick (born Yorkshire, England, 1922) is a philosopher of religion and theologian. In the philosophy of
religion he has contributed to the areas of epistemology of religion and religious pluralism.
423
John Hick Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic: Towards a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic – A Christian Comment
Centre for Global Ethics (CGE) Website at <http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/hick.htm>.
137
on what cannot, in order to move ahead on a common agenda.
4.5.6. The Earth Charter
The concept of an “Earth Charter” first came to light in recommendations made by
the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development report Our Common
Future (otherwise known as the Brundtland Report). The report called for the need
for “a new charter to guide state behaviour in the transition to sustainable
development” and “should prescribe new norms for state and interstate behaviour
needed to maintain livelihoods and life on our shared planet.” 424 The idea of
developing a charter specifically aimed at providing the ethical foundation upon
which Agenda 21425 and the other agreements were to be based, was then included
as part of the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. The
possibility of such a charter generated much interest and a number of governments
and nongovernmental organisations submitted recommendations and proposals. 426
However, several months before the Conference (otherwise known as the Rio Earth
Summit) it was apparent that intergovernmental agreement would not be reached,
and the Earth Charter was removed from the agenda. It was decided instead to write
what became the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - but the idea
of a Charter was not forgotten. During the Non-Governmental Organizations’
(NGO’s) Global Forum, held in unison with the Earth Summit, NGO’s from nineteen
countries negotiated and drafted an Earth Charter building on the work done in the
preparatory process. Maurice Strong (Chairman of the Earth Council) and Mikhail
Gorbachev (the former Soviet president and President of Green Cross International)
further developed the idea in 1994, with the launching of a new Earth Charter
Initiative with the support of the Dutch government.427
The Charter itself was advanced as a “people’s treaty” rather than an
intergovernmental document with several thousand individuals and organizations
around the world taking part in a progressive process of consultation and drafting.428
Local governments, environmental and social justice NGO’s, religious, educational,
and indigenous people’s organizations, scientists, ethicists, and legal experts all
took part. Theologians, experts and religious organizations from Baha’i, Buddhist,
424
Mirian Vilela and Peter Blaze Corcoran Building Consensus on Shared Values from The Earth Charter in Action Website at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENG-Vilela.pdf.
425
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the United
Nations system, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans’ impact on the environment.
426
Mirian Vilela and Peter Blaze Corcoran Building Consensus on Shared Values from The Earth Charter in Action Website at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENG-Vilela.pdf.
427
Earth Charter: Charting a Course for the Future United Nations Development Programme, World Bank, World Resources
Institute, 2003.
428
Ibid.
138
Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Indigenous, Islamic, Jain, Jewish, and Shinto traditions
shared their visions for a just, sustainable and peaceful world. Additional to these
inputs, a broad range of religious and interreligious texts, statements and
declarations were reviewed and used as a basis for the Earth Charter’s inclusive
global vision of shared values and common goals for sustainable living. 429 Under
the leadership of Steven Rockefeller, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at
Middlebury College, Vermont, the core team of drafters drew on a large variety of
sources in order to give the Charter a sound foundation in existing international
agreements. These included fifty existing international law instruments, the findings
of the seven UN summits held during the 1990’s, and the contents of about two
hundred nongovernmental declarations and people’s treaties on environment and
development.430
As it progressed, the text was continuously adapted and extended to encompass
the consensus view of a broad range of organizations and individuals and the
wording itself was shaped by contemporary science, international law, religious
teachings and philosophical traditions, the global ethics movement, and best
practices for building sustainable communities.431 Rockefeller has stated that “there
was a continuous tension between having a short document that would have an
emotional and poetic impact and a document that would give people on the front
line the concrete help they needed”.432 Many believed that a substantial document
was essential as a brief document would not fulfill the expectations of many, thus it
would be difficult to gain widespread support. Others wanted a short Earth Charter
with ten brief principles easy to use and circulate. However, it was decided that a
brief Charter would be too general, and generalities often did not address the
complexity of the problems from the point of view of many groups. The Drafting
Committee thus opted for a layered document and divided the charter into four parts,
with a set of sixteen overarching ethical principles and sixty-one supporting
principles. The full text of the Earth Charter can be found at Appendix F of this thesis.
The Earth Charter stands apart from many other United Nations-driven
declarations and treaties that address the environment and development. Rather
than being a prescription for action, it is a set of principles for all humanity to live by.
In just over 2,400 words, it lays out an ethical foundation for building a just and
sustainable world. It is based on respect for nature and people, universal human
rights, social and economic justice, democratic and participatory societies, and nonviolent conflict resolution rather than a purely economic and science driven
429
Ibid.
Ibid.
431
Ibid.
432
Ibid.
430
139
approach that most governments take toward sustainable development. Within this
holistic worldview, the strengthening of democratic institutions, the transparency
and accountability of governing institutions, and inclusive participatory decisionmaking are inseparable from environmental protection and social and economic
justice. 433 The Earth Charter is also largely a bottom-up rather than a top-down
initiative. It is shaped and adopted primarily by civil society and local government
institutions rather than central governments. Because it is not a policy-making
document, which may be ratified by some governments and ignored or rejected by
others, the hope is that it will have a far-reaching effect on citizens globally,
generating changes in attitudes and behaviour by individuals, communities, local
governments, schools and universities, nongovernmental organizations, and
businesses. 434 The Charter has so far been endorsed by several thousand
organizations globally including a number of states, government agencies and other
organizations with large memberships.435 These include national and international
non-governmental organizations, educational institutions, private sector entities,
religious groups, and around 400 cities.436 Accordingly, the Earth Charter has been
translated into over 40 languages from Vietnamese to Spanish, Russian, Chinese
and others. 437 It has been presented and discussed in many meetings since its
launch at the beginning of the new millennium - locally, nationally and
internationally. There have been a number of workshops, conferences and
publications specifically on the Earth Charter and many educators have
incorporated it into university programmes.438 270 universities around the world now
endorse it. 439 It has also been used in community development, professional
training, and in schools. Bosselmann and Engel state these endorsements signify a
strong commitment to the spirit and goals of the Earth Charter and to working toward
the implementation of its values and principles.440 In 2003, UNESCO recognised the
Earth Charter as an important ethical framework for sustainable development and
an important educational instrument. This led to its recognition as the key reference
document for the current United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (2005-2014).441
433
Ibid.
Ibid.
435
Klaus Bosselmann and J. Ronald Engel (eds) The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers,
Amsterdam, 2010) 21.
436
Ibid.
437
Mirian Vilela The Earth Charter Endeavour: Building More Just and Sustainable Societies Through a New Level of
Consciousness. Paper in Global Ethics: Noel Preston (ed) 2007, 34-40 at
<http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/fullText;dn=200712012;res=APAFT>.
438
Ibid.
439
Universities that have endorsed Earth Charter (updated March 26th 2009) at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/attachments/4/Endorsements%20-%20Universities.pdf.
440
Klaus Bosselmann and J. Ronald Engel (eds) The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers,
Amsterdam, 2010) 21.
441
Earth Charter Initative (ECI), United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, ECI website at
www.earthcharterinaction.org/download/education/un_Decade_on_ESD.pdf .
434
140
In 2007-2008 the Earth Charter Initiative implemented a project on Religion and
Sustainability. It focused on reaching out to religious groups and leaders in order to
seek their engagement in utilizing the Earth Charter.442 The project also involved
research and the development of educational materials designed specifically for
religious audiences.443
In 2009, a Task Force on Religion, Spirituality and Ethics was formed with a
central aim of engaging individuals, institutions, and organizations concerned with
religion, spirituality, and ethics to utilize the Earth Charter as a part of their efforts
toward creating a just, peaceful, and sustainable future for the planet. 444 In
particular, this Task Force reaches out to leaders of religious institutions and
communities; scholars and theologians of the world’s religions; ethicists; and
individuals and organizations interested in linking religion and ethics to issues of
sustainability. The Plan of Action states:445
There is a widespread recognition that along with science, economics, and policy the world’s
religions, spiritual perspectives, and ethical values can play a catalyzing role in moving the
human community toward a sustainable future. The vast majority of the world’s peoples draw
inspiration and guidance from their religious beliefs and practices while many outside of
formal religious institutions rely on particular spiritual paths.
For millennia the world’s religious, spiritual and ethical traditions have provided ethical
grounding for the shaping of various cultures throughout the world. From the indigenous
traditions to the axial age religions arising in the last 3.000 years, humans have oriented
themselves to the mystery of existence, to relations with other humans, and to nature itself.
The Earth Charter recognizes the immense contributions that have been made by religious,
spiritual, and ethical traditions. Indeed, the Earth Charter affirms the rich multicultural and
multireligious expressions present in the human community. While respecting this
remarkable diversity, it also invites the world’s religious, spiritual, and ethical traditions into
dialogue with the emerging global ethics represented in the Earth Charter.
The Task Force is building on this collaborative work to further engage the religious,
spiritual, and ethical communities by foregrounding research, education, and
outreach.446
“The Earth Charter Initiative: Religion and Spirituality” at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/categories/Religion%20and%20Spirituality/.
443
Ibid.
444
Ibid.
445
The Earth Charter Task Force on Religion, Spirituality, and Ethics: Plan of Action at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/attachments/12/PoA_EC_TF_Rel%20%282%29.pdf.
446
Ibid.
442
141
4.6. Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to develop an understanding of religious
perspectives on climate change issues. Although there is not presently faith-wide
participation in climate change initiatives, it is apparent that world faiths are
increasingly acknowledging the responsibility to act. The five major world’s religions
(the Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions) and their respective
ethical perspectives on climate change have helped build an optimistic vision for
future collaboration. Examples of interreligious initiatives have also provided
evidence that faiths are developing creative ways in which to unite toward the
common goal of protection of the global environment. The Earth Charter in
particular, possesses a set of common environmental principles that could be
utilised in any future work.
The next question must ponder how religion and law may be united toward this
common goal. With a strong secular bias presently presiding over international
affairs, religion has been relegated to a back seat. The presumption that religion
does not belong in the public sphere must therefore be dispelled. Chapter 5
discusses the nexus between religion and law, describing the history and theory of
secularisation. The many concepts of secularisation make this a complicated
matter, with numerous models maintaining negative connotations for religion. These
range from the long-term decline in the influence of religion, particularly in politics,
to an ideology that advocates marginalization of religion from other spheres of life.
More positive notions, however, point to a differentiation between religion and other
spheres of society (including political, economic and cultural) but not necessarily to
the decline of religion’s influence.
142
The Nexus between Religion and Law
5.1. Introduction
In the preceding chapter, it was observed that numerous religious groups and
organizations are actively participating in climate change and other environmental
issues. Although all commendable initiatives, without the support of, and
collaboration with, intergovernmental bodies, this will not be sufficient to invoke the
ethical changes required to alleviate climate change concerns. In the core
disciplines of international relations, religion has seldom been a key focus area,
especially in the decades that followed World War II. 1 However, after numerous
global upsets (notably the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the terrorist attacks of 11
September 2001, and a range of other violent incidents of religiously fueled
tensions) the question of the place for religious organizations in world affairs and in
global institutions has become a steadily increasing topic of debate.2 Former US
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s book The Mighty and the Almighty is a prime
example of the argument that systematic neglect of religious factors has been the
general rule of the past and this has blinded policy makers to important forces at
work in the international arena.3
The reasons for neglect are generally attributed to a strong secular bias
grounded in the assumptions that, first, religion belonged in the private sphere, and
second, that with modernisation of societies religion as a major factor in global
politics was declining in importance.4 A broad religious ‘illiteracy’ developed within
policy communities as a consequence. This began with gaps in educational
programs as discussion and study of religion moved to the margins or out of the
classroom, and was accentuated by a lack of professional frameworks to encourage
thoughtful analysis and strategic reflections where religious actors and issues were
involved.5
The aim of this chapter is to review the relationship that exists between law and
religion and also to seek a pathway leading to active collaboration between the two
disciplines. The chapter will discuss the history of the ‘separation of church and
state’ via secularisation and will then proceed to challenge the dominant
secularisation theories by maintaining religion has not disappeared from the public
1
Katherine Marshall Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013) 1.
Ibid.
3
Ibid. See Madeleine Albright The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (Harper Perennial,
New York, 2007).
4
Ibid, 2.
5
Ibid.
2
143
sphere. It has instead become increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental
field, and is a veritable source of knowledge that warrants consideration as a
valuable actor in the global arena.
5.2. History of secularisation
Reflecting on the relationships between religious and political authority in the
modern era, the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is the central juncture.
Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, religion constituted a fundamental basis
for the normative rules regulating the relationship between the political powers of
that period in different parts of the world. 6 However, the Thirty Years War (16181648) was to change all that. It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European
history and although it commenced for religious reasons, namely the struggle
between Catholics and Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire, it soon turned into
an all-out struggle for military and political hegemony in Europe.7 It tore ancient
societies apart with the contra claims of different sects and churches, their
competing teachings and interpretations of scripture. 8 This conflict made it clear that
no longer could international law and religion share the closeness that it may once
have enjoyed. The practice of justifying legal principles through their accordance
with religious teaching grew ever weaker because no one single source of religion
now presided.9 Henry Wheaton described the conflict in his 1836 Elements: “The
state of public law and European society in the beginning of the sixteenth century:
one mass of dissimulation, crime, and corruption, which called loudly for a great
teacher and reformer to arise, who should speak the unambiguous language of truth
and justice to princes and people and stay the ravages of this moral pestilence.” 10
Hugo Grotius, the famous Dutch Protestant jurist, became this great teacher and
reformer:11
[His] age was peculiarly fruitful in great men, but produced no one more remarkable for
genius and for variety of talents and knowledge, or for the important influence his labors
exercised upon the subsequent opinions and conduct of mankind. Almost equally
distinguished as a scholar and a man of business, he was at the same time an eloquent
advocate, a scientific lawyer, classical historian, patriotic statesman, and learned theologian.
Mashood A Baderin “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes” Inaugural lecture delivered by the author at the School of
Law, SOAS, University of London on February 18, 2009.
7
Antonio Cassesse International Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005) 24.
8
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 7.
9
Ibid 7.
10
H Wheaton Elements of International Law: With a Sketch of the History of the Science (Carey, Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia,
1836) 27.
11
Ibid.
6
144
His was one of those powerful minds which have paid the tribute of their assent to the truth
of Christianity.
Grotius had foreseen a scenario of international lawlessness emerging from the
remnants of the Thirty Years War and the fall of power of the Holy Roman Empire
(which had enjoyed an overarching authority over many principalities). 12 With the
liberation of these principalities and their emergence as separate and independent
sovereign states, the prime imperative for states was to protect themselves from
encroachment or annexation by their more powerful neighbours. With no real moral
authority to protect, the law of the jungle was anticipated to preside and every state
set to fend for itself. Grotius’ own definition of the problem is written in the prologue
to his great treatise of 1625, the Law of War and Peace:13
I have had many and weighty reasons for undertaking to write upon this subject.
Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war, such as even
barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes,
or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any
respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a general decree, frenzy has
openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes.
Confronted with such utter ruthlessness, many men who are the very furthest from being
bad men, have come to the point of forbidding all use of arms to the Christian, whose rule
of conduct above everything else comprises the duty of loving all men. To this opinion
sometimes John Ferus and my fellow country-man Erasmus seem to incline, men who have
the utmost devotion to peace in both Church and State; but their purpose, as I take it, is,
when things have gone in one direction, to force them in the opposite direction, as we are
accustomed to do, that they may come back to a true middle ground. But the very effort of
pressing too hard in the opposite direction is often so far from being helpful that it does harm,
because in such arguments the detection of what is extreme is easy, and results in
weakening the influence of other statements which are well within the bounds of truth. For
both extremes therefore a remedy must be found that men may not believe either that
nothing is allowable, or that everything is.
Grotius based a new international system, not on the authority of religious teaching,
but on human experience and on the natural law or idealistic philosophies of his
time.14 He utilised all literature available in search of general principles, and worked
out a number of these on a secular basis. Although there were scriptural references
from the Old and New Testaments in his writings, he did not place compelling
12
, C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 8-9.
13
Hugo Grotius The Law of War and Peace (1625).
14
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 9. Grotius could not rely on religious authority, as the centres of religious authority were numerous and no longer
would any one interpretation or declaration by any one authority be regarded as authoritative.
145
reliance upon them.15 His explanation, forming the basis of what we now know as
the classical law of nations, was based on a system of rules that mixed practical
and moral elements. Westphalia’s principle of sovereignty, now embodied in Article
2(4) of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, meant that each state could choose
its own religion without outside intervention, but the Treaty also included provisions
calling for the protection of Catholics in Protestant states and vice versa. 16 Grotius
felt that much of the law of nations bound not only Christian states, but those of
Islam and China too. From this time forward, the emphasis on the substantive role
and influence of religion in international law gradually declined in Europe, until
modern international law became perceived as a secular positivist legal system with
its foundation regarded as laying “firmly in the development of Western culture and
political organization”.
17
The separation of religion and politics and the
establishment of politics as a separate, independent sphere continued to develop
with the French Revolution. Although its Rights of Man advanced several liberal
freedoms,
the
revolution
conceived
of
religious
freedom
narrowly
and
18
individualistically. Bishops and priests were required to take an oath of loyalty and
were imprisoned and killed upon refusal. Thus the state sought to control the
Church. In Western Europe, anticlericalism continued in liberal republican
movements and also in Latin America during the nineteenth and early twentieth
century’s. 19 It continued in Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf 20 in Germany. The
Church clung to a medieval doctrine that prescribed its own establishment as the
religion of the realm in majority Catholic countries and the denial of religious
freedom to minorities, but by the early twentieth century, liberals had eroded its
influence on European politics and society considerably, especially in the area of
education.21
Political philosopher Timothy Samuel Shah argues that secularisation reached
its global high-point between 1917 and 1967.22 During this time, the ideologies and
political movements with the greatest impetus were secular (although sometimes
15
Ibid, 9.
Mark Weston Janis “Religion and International Law” (2002) ASIL Insights at http://www.asil.org/insigh93.cfm.
Mashood A Baderin “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?” in SOAS School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper
Series: Research Paper No 4/2010 Reprinted from European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 5 (2009) (Sweet & Maxwell,
London, 2009)641. See also M N Shaw International Law 5th edn (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2003) 13-22; D J
Bederman et al International Law in Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001); J L Brierly The Law of Nations:
An Introduction to the International Law of Peace 6th edn (H Waldock (ed) 1963)1; C A Stumpf “Christian and Islamic Traditions
of Public International Law” (2005) 7 Journal of the History of International Law 69.
18
Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 188.
19
Ibid.
20
Kulturkampf was the name given to the political struggle for the rights and self-government of the Catholic Church, carried out
chiefly in Prussia and afterwards in Baden,Hesse, and Bavaria. The contest was waged with great vigour from 1871 to 1877;
from 1878 to 1891 it gradually calmed down. On one side stood the government, the Liberals, and the majority of the
Conservatives; on the other, the bishops, the priests, and the bulk of the Catholic people. The Prussian government and Prince
Bismarck were the leaders in this struggle.
21
Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 188.
22
Timothy Samuel Shah Faith on Fire: the Global Explosion of Political Religion (Hoover Institute Press, Stanford, 2011).
16
17
146
enunciated and pursued with religious enthusiasm). 23 In 1917, the Bolshevik
Revolution laid the foundation of a harshly secularizing regime. Nearly every
Communist regime that would take power – in China, Cuba, Vietnam, and
Cambodia – imposed secularism in a similar fashion.24 Fascism in Nazi Germany
developed its own form of state religion, suppressed dissenters, and sought to
eradicate the Jewish religion altogether. 25 Nationalist movements in colonial and
other non-Western states were generally secular ones, influenced by European
liberalism, sometimes socialism, and doctrines of modernisation (Nehru’s India,
Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese nationalism, and movements across Africa). 26 Secular
nationalist regimes arose throughout the Arab world after World War II, modeled on
the Republic of Turkey, established by Kemal Ataturk in 1924.27 By 1925, almost
every Latin American state had disestablished its Catholic Church, due to the
influence of European liberal parties. And in Western Europe, France’s 1905 Law
on the Separation of the Churches and State, establishing “laicite” as the principle
for the realm, both achieved and symbolized liberalism’s gains. 28 In the United
States, in the early decades of the twentieth century, the “secular revolution” rapidly
swept through elite social, political, and intellectual sectors. 29 The functional
differentiation of society in the 19th and 20th centuries therefore became one of the
core elements of theories of the modern age and a central component of
secularisation.30
5.2.1. Concepts of the secular
The secular nature of the state, as described above, was rooted “in the desirability
of grounding knowledge and the governance of society on non-religious foundations
of scientific rationality,” and closely relates to the founding of modern states, the
division of humanity into discrete, organised territories that denied the primacy of
transcendent religious loyalties.
31
Secularism first cemented itself securely
throughout the Christian world, and then throughout the rest of the world via
colonization and conquest. Since its inception, secularism fused itself with a
technocratic, scientific rationality, which denounced religion as irrational, traditional,
and therefore anti-modern. It manifested itself in the constitutional arrangements,
Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 189.
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Christian Smith The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularisation of American Public Life (University
of California Press, Berkeley, 2003).
30
Mashood A Baderin “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?” in SOAS School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper
Series: Research Paper No 4/2010 Reprinted from European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 5 (2009) (Sweet & Maxwell,
London, 2009) 641.
31
Richard Falk Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave, New York, 2001) Manuscript, 50-1.
23
24
147
institutions, and structures of the state. Mahmood Ahmad states, “Whereas God
formed the center of the Christian worldview, secularism held as its deity the notion
of reason, the idea that statements could be verified by reference to ordinary human
experience or by reasoning from objective, empirical premises.” 32 Secularism
became known as a humanizing and liberating tradition due to its conscious
dislocation from the tyrannical, non-reasonable dictates of religious faith. 33 As a
result of it’s weaving into the fabric of reason and thought, the “religious dimension
of human experience has been generally excluded from the serious study and
practice of governance.”34
The term ‘secular’ is infamously ambiguous. As Daniel Philpott says – the term
is sometimes used descriptively, sometimes predictively, sometimes prescriptively,
sometimes ideologically, sometimes implying hostility to religion, sometimes
carrying a neutral or positive connotation. 35 Philpott states that at least nine
concepts can be distinguished (see table 1 below), of which four are neutral or
positive and five are negative.
Table 1 Nine Concepts of the Secular36
Positive or Neutral
Negative
1. Secular means
pertaining to the world
outside the monastic
sphere
2. Secular means a
concept or use of
language that makes no
specific reference to
religion or revelation but is
not necessarily hostile to
them
3. Secular means a
differentiation between
religion and other spheres
of society (political,
economic, cultural, etc.)
but not necessarily the
decline of religion’s
influence
4. Secular describes a
social context in which
religious faith is one of
many options rather than
an unproblematic feature
5. Secularisation is a decline
in the number of individuals
who hold religious beliefs
6. Secularisation is a decline
in religious practice and
community
7. Secularisation is a
differentiation between
religion and other spheres of
society (political, economic,
cultural, etc.) in a way that
entails, and is part and parcel
of, a long-term decline in the
influence of religion
8. Secularisation involves a
decline of religious influence
on politics, not because of a
general long-term decline in
religion but rather because of
the intentional efforts of
Mahood Ahmad “Religious Resurgence in an Era of Globalisation: Islam’s Quest for Global Participation” (2005) Futuristic
Forum: A Policy Research Organisation Paper at http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html .
33
Ibid.
34
Richard Falk Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave, New York, 2001) 17.
35
Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 185.
36
Ibid.
32
148
of the universe (Taylor,
2007)
regimes to suppress it. This
concept does not imply a
decline in religious belief or
practice
9. Secularism is an ideology
or set of beliefs that
advocates the marginalization
of religion from other spheres
of life
Philpott explains the meaning behind each concept:37
Positive or neutral meanings (1) The earliest meaning of the word secular comes from medieval Europe, where it
referred to the world outside of the monastic sphere.
(2) Secular can simply mean a concept or use of language that makes no specific
reference to religion or revelation but is not necessarily hostile to them. The
injunction “do not steal” is expressed in secular language, but as one of the Ten
Commandments, it is obviously not inimical to religion.
(3) Secular can mean the differentiation of religion from other spheres of society, but
not necessarily the decline of religion’s public influence. Differentiation, at least in
the political sense, can be defined as the degree of mutual autonomy between
religious bodies and state institutions in their foundational legal authority. Thus,
when religion and state evolve from being intertwined in their authority, as in
medieval Europe, to a condition where religion is disestablished, differentiation has
occurred. However, this may not lead to disuse as religion can still be quite
influential in politics even from a differentiated position. (This is the central insight
of Casanova’s (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World). What may be found,
however, within the broad category of “religion-friendly” differentiation, in liberal
democracies are a wide variety of relationships between religion and state, including
states with established churches and varying degrees of “government involvement
in religion.”
(4) Taylor, in his recent book, A Secular Age (2007) stated that secular is not the decline
of religion but a type of social context, developed most distinctively in the North
Atlantic, in which religious faith is held in an awareness that it is one of many options
rather than simply an unproblematic feature of the architecture of the universe.
Philpott states that for most people, however, the more intuitive concepts of the
secular are ones that carry negative connotations for religion:38
37
38
Ibid 185-186.
Ibid.
149
(5) Secularisation means a decline in religion as a belief that individuals hold. This
occurs when fewer people adhere to the tenets of religious faiths.
(6) Secularisation is a decline in religious practice and community, which can occur
even without a decline in individual belief.
(7) Secularisation is one in which differentiation leads to the decline of religion’s
influence. Contrary to concept (3), not only does religious authority become
disconnected from political authority but religion also has less and less influence
over politics altogether. Differentiation under this concept becomes a phase in the
long collapse of a supernova.
(8) Secularisation means that religion loses its political influence, but not through
spontaneous decline. Instead, political regimes intentionally suppress it. Such
secularisation does not necessarily relate to the decline of religious belief or practice
but is the product of deliberate efforts to marginalize it. It is found in most Communist
regimes. Another version resides in the French Revolution and its liberal republican
legacy in European politics, emblematized in France’s 1905 Law on the Separation
of the Churches and State, which seeks not to eradicate religion but to subject it to
strict state controls. A more sweeping version was then planted in Muslim soil in the
Republic of Turkey, founded by Kemal Ataturk in 1923, and replicated in Arab
nationalist regimes following World War II.
(9) Secularism takes the form of a normative or ideological claim. It is a set of beliefs
that advocates the marginalization of religion from other spheres of life.
These dominant theories, according to Philpott, “all assume that the states, nations,
international organizations, parties, classes, businesses, interest groups, nongovernmental organizations, and lobbies that carry on politics pursue ends that
include power, conquest, freedom, wealth, a redistribution of wealth, welfare
provision, human rights, justice, environmental cleanliness, and other goals, but
they do not pursue religious ends and are not influenced by religious actors.”
Philpott suggests that such theories reason as if religion has disappeared from
politics.39 He questions why these theories are secular in this way and surmises
they were formed in response to the historical political developments, in which
religion declined in its influence on the state, whether because of its overall decline
or because of the efforts of the politically powerful to subordinate it. 40 The two
processes, modernisation and secularisation, carried a shared assumption for
international relations analysis: sovereign states are the key actors in international
relations, characterised by a key attribute, state sovereignty, and a fundamental
39
40
Ibid 187.
Ibid.
150
principle, international non-intervention. 41 According to Philpott, the Treaty of
Westphalia was a ‘structure of political authority that was forged centuries ago by a
sharply secularizing set of events and that has endured in its secular guise ever
since.’42 Its overall impact was to remove religion as a justification for war. It was
widely believed that secular modernisation and the rise of science and rationality
would combine to put relentless pressure on religious faith, resulting in its steady
demise and the emergence, globally, of decidedly secular polities and societies. 43
However, these theories may no longer be adequate or useful as a resurgence of
religion as a political force appears to be currently occurring. 44
5.2.2. Rejecting secularist theories
It was Hadden, in 1987, who stated: “few forecasts have been uttered with more
unshakable confidence than sociology’s belief that religion is in the midst of its final
death throes.” He argued that this belief reached the level of a doctrine or ideology
that resulted in the idea rarely being subjected to any real scrutiny.45
With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to understand how the presuppositions of the
discipline have radically affected our thinking about religion. But only of late have scholars
begun to explore how the discipline’s theoretical presuppositions, emanating from the
secularisation model, have clouded clear-headed observation of data as well as theory
construction.
The social science assumption of a secular world, he states, has come under
increasing scrutiny. By the late 1980’s/early 1990’s sociologists began to reassess
secularisation theory. Events including the rise of the religious right in the United
States and the Iranian revolution had a profound influence that simply could not be
ignored. Similarly, it could not be ignored that people continued to be religious and
religion continued to influence social institutions and behaviour. 46 Fox states,
ironically, this reassessment of the role of religion in society has resulted in an
argument that is nearly exactly opposite to the argument made by modernisation
and secularisation theory: modernisation, rather than causing religion’s demise, is
responsible for its resurgence.47 This means in practice it represents a complete
reversal in the role religion is believed to play in modern society in politics. This
41
Jeffrey Haynes Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics (Routledge, New York, 2008) 293.
Ibid.
Ibid.
44
Ibid. Although in some places such as Britain, it is somewhat struggling, in other places it is burgeoning. For example, the
Christian Church has grown fivefold in Africa over the last 40 years. See also D Belshaw, R Calderesi, and C Sugden, (eds)
Faith in Development: Partnership between the World Bank and the Churches of Africa (Oxford: Regnum, Washington DC,
2002).
45
Jeffrey K Hadden “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory” (1987b) Social Forces, 65(3) 597.
46
Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 11-12.
47
Ibid 12.
42
43
151
reassessment, posits Fox, is multifaceted and has identified multiple ways in which
processes associated with modernisation have contributed to the revitalization of
religion. He lists them as thus:
(1) In many parts of the Third World, efforts at modernisation have failed causing a
religious backlash against the Western secular ideologies that were the basis for
the governments which were in charge of these unsuccessful efforts at
modernisation. Furthermore, due to the processes of colonialism and culture
colonialism, Western secular ideas are considered foreign and, therefore,
illegitimate, leaving only religion as a basis for legitimacy.48
(2) Modernisation has undermined traditional lifestyles, community values, and morals,
which are based in part on religion, thus contributing to this religious backlash
against modernity.49
(3) Modernisation has allowed both the state and religious institutions to increase their
spheres of influence, thus resulting in more clashes between the two.50
(4) Modern political systems allow for mass participation in politics, which has allowed
the religious sectors of society a means to impose their views on others.51
(5) Modern communications has allowed religious groups to export their views more
easily and the international media has made religious groups aware of the activities
of other religious groups, often inspiring similar actions.52
(6) A new trend in the sociology of religion, known as the rational choice or economic
theory of religion, posits that the freedom of choice in many modern societies to
select one’s own religion has led to an increase in religiosity. The basic argument is
that when religious monopolies are broken down, as they have been in much of the
modern world, people engage in a cost–benefit analysis in selecting their religion.
At the same time religious “producers” have an incentive to make their religions as
attractive as possible to the body of “consumers” in the religious “market- place.”
The resulting “free market” has made religion more attractive to the “consumers” of
religion, resulting in an increase in religiosity.53
Ibid. See also Mark Juergensmeyer The New Cold War? (University of California, Berkeley, 1993); Scott M Thomas “Taking
Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Society”
(2000) Millennium, 29 (3), 817–819.
49
Ibid. See also Emile Sahliyeh (ed) Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York
Press, New York, 1990) 9; Jeff Haynes Religion in Third World Politics (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 1994) 34; Scott M
Thomas “Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of
International Society” (2000) Millennium 29 (3) 816.
50
See also Anson Shupe “The Stubborn Persistence of Religion in the Global Arena” in Emile Sahliyeh (ed) Religious
Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990) 23-26.
51
See also Barry Rubin “Religion and International Affairs” in Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson (eds) Religion, the
Missing Dimension of Statecraft (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994) 22-23.
52
See also Anson Shupe “The Stubborn Persistence of Religion in the Global Arena” in Emile Sahliyeh (ed) Religious
Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990) 22.
53
See also Laurence R Iannaccone “Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational Choice Approach to Religion” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 34 (1), 1995a,b; R. Stephen Warner “Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological
Study of Religion in the United States” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (5), March 1993, 1044–1093.
48
152
(7) Modern religious organisations contribute to political activity. On a general level,
some form of organisation is necessary for political mobilisation and religious
institutions provide ready-made organisations for this purpose that often have
access to
the media, considerable
economic assets, and
international
communications networks. In fact, in many non-democratic regimes the protected
status of religious institutions makes them the only format in which people are
allowed to organise. People who are active in religious organisations tend to
develop organisational and leadership skills that are also useful for political
activities. They are also often exposed to mobilisation efforts by their religious
organisations as well as political messages and morality messages, which,
themselves, are not so different from political messages. Religious organisations
also help to develop interpersonal networks that are useful for political mobilisation.
However, it should be noted that under many circumstances religious organisations
are conservative and prefer to support the status-quo.54
(8) Modernity does cause secularisation in some parts of the religious economy in that
many mainstream and dominant religions become worldlier. However this process
results in a countervailing trend of other parts of the religious economy because
there is a demand for less worldly religions. Thus secularisation is one of two
interrelated processes. First, mainstream organisations become worldlier as they
and their elites become more intertwined with the establishment, which often desires
to partake in religion without being overly restricted by religious precepts. Second,
those who desire a more spiritual and otherworldly religious experience flee the
mainstream religions to either sects that broke off from the mainstream religions or
to different faiths altogether. 55 These dual trends are reflected in the decline of
mainstream faiths in Europe while at the same time Evangelical and postmodernist
faiths are thriving there.56
Fox states that although many political scientists today do not openly include religion
in their theories and explanations, very few deny that it influences the political
process. Thus, the modernisation theory’s rejection of religion as a thing of the past
is itself a thing of the past.57 Sociologists have, however, been more reluctant to
entertain this notion. Nevertheless, despite the long history of secularisation theory
See also Jonathon Fox “Do Religious Institutions Support Violence or the Status Quo?” (1999) Studies in Conflict and
Terrorism 22(2), 119-139; Jeffrey K Hadden “Toward Desacralising Secularization Theory” (1987) Social Forces 65(3), 587-611;
Fredrick C Harris “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political Activism” (1994) Journal of Politics
56(1), 42-68; Hank Johnston and Jozef Figa “The Church and Political Opposition: Comparative Perspectives on Mobilization
Against Authoritarian Regimes” (1988) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27(1), 32-47; Sidney Verba, Kay L Scholzman,
Henry Bradey and Norman H Nie “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Resources: Participation in the United States” (1993) British
Journal of Political Science 23(4), 453-497.
55
Ibid. See also Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation
(University of California Press, Berkeley,1985) 1–2.
56
Jeffrey Haynes Religion in Global Politics (Longman, London, 1998) 66–67, 215–216.
57
Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 14.
54
153
in the social sciences and the fact that it played a central role in the development of
the sociology of religion,58
…recent theoretical and empirical papers on the sociology of religion appearing in top
journals have generated interest and controversy. Indeed, for the first time since the 1960s,
scholars who typically specialize in other substantive areas are doing research on, or
theorizing about, the sociology of religion. This development is a tremendous surprise to
many sociologists, who accepted the expectations of secularisation theories that promised
declining importance of religion in social life, diminished strength for religious organisations,
and waning religious commitment among individuals.
However, Fox upholds, many sociologists continue to argue that secularisation is
taking place. 59 This has resulted in a spirited debate among sociologists that
revolves around: (1) whether secularisation means people are becoming less
religious or whether it means a decline in religion’s influence over public institutions;
or (2) whether either of these processes is, in fact, occurring. 60 This debate is so
pivotal to the study of religion by sociologists that a volume of Sociology of Religion
was dedicated wholly to this debate with extensive arguments on both sides of both
of the aforementioned issues.61
The rejection of religion by international relations scholars is perhaps more
profound than its rejection by political scientists and sociologists. While sociologists
had a body of theory explaining why religion was believed to be of declining
significance, there is no such theory in international relations. Rather, the study of
international relations simply ignores religion. Erin Wilson, a Research Fellow at the
School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning at RMIT University, recently
added valuable discussion to this contentious topic. 62 Wilson’s article aims to
expand knowledge and understanding of the reasons why religion has been largely
overlooked as a contributor to theories and practices around justice. Her article
explores why religion is neglected, despite its potential for constructive involvement
in the pursuit of global justice.63 As climate change can be directly related to justice,
the article is an appropriate starting point for new dialogue.
Ibid. See also Daren E Sherkat and Christopher G Ellison “Recent Development and Controversies in the Sociology of
Religion” (1999) Annual Review of Sociology 25, 364.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 14.
62
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 733-754.
63
Wilson defines global justice as pertaining primarily to efforts to equalise and reconcile economic, political, socio-cultural, and
ecological relationships between the global North and the global South. She understands global justice as focusing primarily on
issues of extreme poverty, hunger, conflict, mass human rights abuses, and, increasingly, unequal use of and damage to the
global environment as well as unequal exposure to the consequences of global environmental change. Global justice, she says,
is also the promotion of equality, social justice and reconciliation, diversity, democracy, nonviolence, solidarity, ecological
sustainability, and planetary citizenship.
58
154
Wilson states that recent global justice debates within International Relations
(IR) focus on legal, moral, and theoretical arguments. The idea of global justice has
emerged primarily from within cosmopolitan moral theory which has strong
connections with liberalism, particularly through the writings of Immanuel Kant. 64
Liberalism holds that religion is a source of division and intolerance and therefore
must be excluded from the public sphere. Liberal scholars, such as Thomas and
Hurd, point to the wars of religion and the violence and chaos provoked in Europe
around the time of the emergence of the modern state as evidence for religion’s role
in promoting division and intolerance and the subsequent need for religion’s
exclusion and privatisation.
65
The problem this presents, however, is that
contemporary positive contributions of religion toward theories and practices of
global justice are often not considered. Wilson points out that although religion has
already made a substantial contribution to global justice, theoretically and
practically, throughout history and in current politics, an even greater potential may
be realised if existing understandings of religion and global justice are addressed.66
In the first section of Wilson’s article, she discusses why creating space for a
partnership across religion and IR is beneficial for the pursuit of global justice. She
remarks that contributions of religion in IR since the early 1990’s have been
significant. These range from discussions of foreign policy, violence, conflict
resolution and peace building, human rights, IR theory, and democratic statebuilding. This research was and continues to be highly significant in “bringing
religion back in” to IR. However, Wilson says, two key problems remain. First,
despite all this literature on religion and IR, much of the work remains peripheral,
published in lower-tier journals, overlooked by policy-makers and practitioners.67
Second, many authors continue to use a limited definition of religion. 68 So although
these publications brought religion back into IR, it was only on terms acceptable to
IR scholarship. As Wilson notes, “a tendency remained to focus on the influence of
religious institutions, the religious beliefs of individuals, and to “rationalize” religion,
64
According to Kant, all rational beings are members in a single moral community. They are analogous to citizens in the political
(republican) sense in that they share the characteristics of freedom, equality, and independence, and that they give themselves
the law. Their common laws, however, are the laws of morality, grounded in reason.
65
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 733-754.
66
Ibid.
67
Daniel Philpott in “The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations” (2002) 55 (1) World Politics 69
points out that between 1980 and 1999, only six articles on religion appeared out of a possible 1,600 in four leading IR journals
(International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, World Politics, and International Security). A database search of
these four journals between 1999 and 2009 yields similar results, listing only seven articles specifically on religion and/or
secularism.
68
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 733-754.
155
excluding to a large extent religion’s ideational, communal and irrational or spiritual
elements.”69
5.2.3. Dualism
In exploring religion’s continued exclusion from global justice debates in IR, Wilson
says it also draws attention to another limitation – dualism. Dualism or dichotomous
thinking is a dominant theory in Western thought, language, and academic traditions
and works to separate concepts that often exist in symbiotic relationships.70 Dualism
can be a useful tool to help make sense of the world we live in, but it also has the
power to result in hierarchical privileging of certain characteristics, events, and
representations of history being valued over others.71 Julia Kristeva refers to this as
“monological discourse,” a discourse in which one object, experience, or
perspective is presented as the only object, experience or perspective. 72 In this
respect, politics and religion are not valued equally. Instead they are hierarchically
placed whereby politics is openly discussed and valued, while religion is either
excluded or denigrated as “bad” within monological discourse. 73 Walzer has
highlighted this tendency in the context of liberal politics, specifically with reference
to reason and passion. Passion is separated from and subordinated to reason.74
And as Gatens has discerned, dichotomies are not neutral ways of dividing up the
world, but instead contain “implicit assumptions that assign a prominence and a
dominant value to the term in the position A at the expense of not-A.” 75 Wilson
suggests that viewing the world through these practical oppositions, means one side
of each opposition becomes privileged while the other is subordinated. These
relationships are managed in Western society by the public/private divide where
privileged concepts are situated in the public realm, while subordinate terms are
privatized.76 What this means for religion is that it is not only subordinated at the
“world” level but also at the level of scholarship. Approaches to religion within IR,
Wilson argues, operate around three dichotomies which relate to how scholars
perceive religion’s influence on politics and society. These perceptions in turn affect
69
Ibid.
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 739.
71
Ibid. See also Julia Kristeva “Word, Dialogue and Novel in The Kristeva Reader, edited by Toril Moi (Columbia University
Press, New York, 1986) 49.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid. See also Michael Walzer Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism (Yale University Press, New Haven,
2004).
75
Moira Gatens Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991) 93.
76
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 739.
70
156
how scholars consider religion to be in IR analysis. The three dichotomies are
institutional/ideational, individual/communal, and irrational/rational. 77
(1) institutional/ideational – relates to religion as an institution or religion as a set of
ideas.
Although the overall tendency within IR is to focus on religion as an
institution, Wilson proposes it is both an institution and ideational. The institutional
element of religion, she maintains, is observable and tangible, and, thus, easier to
examine, in contrast to religion’s ideational influences, which are more subtle,
implicit, and intangible. The existence of religious institutions is more common in the
Judeo-Christian religious traditions of the West. Other religions, says Wilson, such
as Buddhism and Hinduism, do not have the organised institutionalized structures
that characterize Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and to a lesser extent,
Islam.78 This focus on the institutional element of religion, along with the separation
of church and state and the international level public/private divide, emphasizes, to
some extent, why religion, particularly its ideational features, continues to be largely
ignored in public international debates such as those about global climate change.
(2) individual/communal – revolves around religion’s primary relevance to either
individuals or communities. Wilson argues that religion’s influence operates at both
individual and communal levels. She states that up until the end of the Cold War,
IR scholars tended to assume that the influence of religion functioned primarily at
the individual level in modern society,79 having been privatized and excluded from
the public sphere. Only in the area of development studies did IR scholars consider
religion’s influence on communities as a whole. 80 Although recent literature has
dedicated further interest to religion’s communal interest, this has mainly been
focused on non-Western and developing countries. Seldom have IR scholars
investigated the influence of religion within the West or within the broader
international community and emerging global identity. 81
(3) irrational/rational - a tremendous amount of IR scholarship has viewed religion
as irrational. This attitude is carried over from the influence of liberalism on the social
sciences and the West generally. The irrational/rational dichotomy is problematic as
both terms are highly contested. From a Western liberal perspective, says Wilson,
77
Ibid 742.
T N Madan “Hinduism” in Global Religions: An Introduction, edited by Mark Juergensmeyer (Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2003) 54.
79
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 743. But also see Richard Little and Steve Smith (eds) Belief Systems and International Relations (Blackwell, Oxford,
1988).
80
Ibid. See also David E Apter The Politics of Modernization (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965) and Donald E Smith
“Religion and Political Modernization: Comparative Perspectives” in Religion and Political Modernization, edited by Donald E
Smith (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974).
81
Ibid 743.
78
157
irrational refers to any concept, belief or value not arrived at by human reason that
must be taken on faith. Rational connotes principles and ideas justified by secular
human reason alone, even though they may have had their origin in religion. 82 This
dichotomy is a central part of how religion has been understood and why religion
has been neglected in IR. It has meant that religion has been considered relevant
only to analyses of “pre-modern” societies and to considerations of other “irrational”
factors such as ethnicity, culture, identity, and emotion, long regarded as marginal
to IR. Lapid and Wendt state this neglect is largely because these concepts are
highly contested and variable, rather than fixed and unchanging. 83 Accordingly,
ethnicity, culture, identity, and emotion have also been excluded from IR. Even
though greater efforts have been made to engage more critically with these aspects
since the end of the Cold War, it still continues to be relegated to the fringes in IR. 84
The focus instead remains on religious nationalism, conflict, and terrorism. This
emphasis reinforces the apparently irrational nature of religion and the need to
exclude it from public political life because of the chaos and intolerance it creates
when allowed in the public sphere. As a result, IR scholars have made little effort to
extend the research agenda on religion to public international debates.85
5.3. Conclusion
Appleby has considered whether scholars investigating religion’s role in IR have
overlooked its fundamental contribution, spiritual wisdom, because they have been
unwilling to examine religion’s irrational and less tangible aspects.86 This suggests
a
deeply
embedded
bias
against
religion,
particularly
religion’s
spiritual/transcendental aspects, within the social sciences and IR. 87 However,
there are a number of reasons emerging from global justice literature suggesting
religion should be openly considered: 88 First, for a theory of global justice to be
morally acceptable, it cannot exclude any group from its reasoning and debates.
Therefore, any arguments and experiences of religious thinkers and actors must be
incorporated into global justice discussions in IR for such conversations to be
82
Ibid. See also Anthony Arblaster The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984) 79 and Raymond
Geuss History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001) 57-58.
83
Yosef Lapid “Culture’s Ship: Returns and Departures in International Relations Theory” in The Return of Culture and Identity in
IR Theory, edited by Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1996) and Alexander Wendt “Identity and
Structural Change in International Politics” in The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, edited by Yosef Lapid and
Frederich Kratochwil (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1996) 62.
84
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 743.
85
Ibid.
86
Scott Appleby “Is Spiritual Wisdom Religion’s Contribution to Global Politics?” Presentation at the 50th Anniversary ISA
Convention, “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future,” New York City, Feb 15-18, 2009.
87
Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies
Quarterly 737-739.
88
Ibid.
158
considered just. 89 Second, religion is already implicit within many global justice
theories used in IR.90 Third, religion encompasses a range of ideas and practices
that can be used as resources in the pursuit of global justice. 91 Finally, a large
number of religious NGOs already carry out crucial work in efforts toward achieving
global justice. 92 For example, World Vision, Tearfund, Muslim Aid, Jewish Aid,
Hindu Aid, and International Justice Mission. These organisations are among
numerous others who work for positive change with some of the poorest, most
disadvantaged communities throughout the world. Wilson suggests that given the
vast range of theoretical and practical resources that can be employed in the pursuit
of global justice, it seems counter-productive to exclude religion from discussions.93
By failing to adequately acknowledge and explore the connection between global
justice and the world’s religious traditions, options for creative insights that could
offer productive contributions to IR efforts are being obstructed. The next chapter
attempts to fill that gap by examining the present position of religion within the
international arena. In particular, it examines the standing and relevance of religion
at the United Nations. The UN is the intergovernmental organisation that has most
openly recognised and endorsed the need to collaborate with the non-governmental
sector; therefore how it accounts for religion and religious NGOs is of immense
importance to the proposal for the establishment of a religious organisation at the
UN.
89
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
92
Ibid.
93
Of course, religion should not be the central justification for global justice theory and practice as this would involve moving
from one extreme to another – towards an overvaluing of religious influence. A point somewhere between the two extremes
would be most desirable.
90
91
159
160
Placing Religion within the International Arena
Whether liked or disliked, ‘religious’ actors shape governance issues in a global world and
awareness of their involvement, value and contribution is vital for justice, peace and
reconciliation on a wide range of policy issues. Religious values and concerns inform and
shape decision-making and there is much need for more public awareness of the work and
significance of religious actors at the UN in achieving (or sometimes subverting) the goals
of justice and human rights.1
6.1. Introduction
Although faith institutions and interreligious organisations within the climate change
domain are becoming increasingly active participants, religion still struggles to find
a place in the public realm. However, some progress has been evidenced in recent
years. For example, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan has set a tone of
appreciation for religion and the work of religious groups at the UN. Citing Pope
John Paul II’s speech to the UN upon its 50 th anniversary in 1995, Annan declared
that “[t]he politics of nations…can never ignore the transcendent, spiritual dimension
of the human experience.” 2 Annan has made significant advances to religious
communities, calling on them to support and strengthen the work of the United
Nations. These advances should not be seen as simple gestures of spirituality
removed from their political context and a larger plan for UN reform, but of religion’s
increasing role in an evolving UN system.3
Although legitimacy of religious voice has been acknowledged to a certain
extent, an explicit “role” for religion has never been clearly established. 4 This is most
likely given the widely differing approaches to religion among the member nations
that constitute the UN. 5 Although there are still many voices who would reject
religion’s right to a place at all, these do appear to be less prominent than those
who extol religion’s role and those who simply do not know what that role should
be.6 Not only do the various actors composing the UN system hold broadly varying
views of religion and religious actors, but the UN as an institution is struggling with
issues about its own identity and philosophy that impact on the place accorded
religion and the work of religious NGOs.7 The UN is seeking its place in a world
where civil society plays a much larger role than in the past, and religious NGOs
J Carrette and H Miall “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN” Briefing Paper, 2012.
Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002.
Ibid.
4
Katherine Marshall Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013) 147.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
1
2
3
161
include a large portion of today’s civil society. 8 Furthermore, the UN must now
accommodate new religious views and groups, especially from conservative circles
that once avoided the UN.9 Marshall avers the history of religious engagement in
the UN context highlights both contestation and changes that have taken place over
the years and it can be viewed as a continuing dialogue and drama.10
The purpose of this chapter is to examine religion’s present standing and
relevance at the UN. For if religion is to play a much larger role in climate change
policymaking, as this thesis proposes, it must be seen as a meaningful and
beneficial actor within the highest of international arenas. First, the extent of current
interactions with religious organisations at the UN is discussed. The discourse
continues through a series of accounts, commencing with the Religion Counts report
whose sole purpose was the analysis of religion at the UN.11 The report sought to
broaden constructive religious participation in the international arena by explaining
how religion operates, analyzing the relationship between religious and secular
actors, and highlighting “best practices” among religious groups.12 Its goal was to
positively enhance religion’s voice in the public realm by providing valuable practical
information for religious groups and their secular partners in dialogue. The second
account is the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy.13 The
Chicago Council on Global Affairs sponsored this independent task force in 2008 in
order to advance understanding of the role of religion in world affairs and to develop
a framework to appropriately integrate religion into U.S. foreign policy. The third
account examines the World Bank and the World Faiths Development Dialogue
(WFDD).14 Established by James D. Wolfensohn, then President of the World Bank,
and Lord George Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, the purpose of the WFDD
organisation was to bridge the gap between the worlds of faith and secular
development by engaging in dialogue and action on poverty, culture and diversity,
services to the poor, and equity. The chapter concludes by discussing the obstacles
facing religious engagement in the international arena.
8
Ibid.
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002.
12
Ibid.
13
R. Scott Appleby and Richard Cizik (co-chairs) Report of the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy
Sponsored by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago, 2010.
14
World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about.
9
162
6.2. The extent of current interactions with religious organisations
at the UN
The extent of interactions with religious organisations at the UN may differ today,
but religious involvement is not a new phenomenon. The UN has long had an
institutionalised relationship with selected non-governmental organisations.
15
Article 71 of the UN Charter states that the UN will ‘consult’ with NGOs in order to
carry out related work through ECOSOC. ECOSOC seeks to facilitate ‘international
cooperation on standards-making and problem-solving in economic and social
issues.’16 Additionally, the UN Charter includes a reference to religion, albeit in the
context of a fundamental UN focus: human rights. 17 In this context, the UN
recognises religious belief as part of human rights and human freedom.
In 1972, a ‘Committee of Religious NGOs’ was established, three decades after
the founding of the UN, followed in 2004 by creation of a ‘NGO Committee on
Spirituality, Values, and Global Concerns’. 18 The existence of these two bodies
highlights that even though the UN was founded on secular values, religious and
spiritual entities have sought to influence it for 40 years. 19 However, it is only since
the 1990s that religious organisation numbers have grown considerably, including
institutionalised presence to UN committees in New York and Geneva, as well as
interactions with many UN Committees and UN Commissions, including, inter alia,
the UN Commission for Social Development.20
The growing religious presence at the UN reflects two main developments. First,
there is a well-documented, recent increase in significance of religion in international
relations. 21 Second, following the end of the Cold War and the expansion of
globalization, there has been an increased international focus on ‘values’, norms’
and ‘behaviour.’ This has coincided with an international religious resurgence and
increased prominence of ethical and moral (often overlapping with religious)
concerns in debates about values, norms and behaviours. 22 In particular, many
religious organisations have an interest in various aspects of human rights at the
UN, including an interest in how poverty-stricken people in poor and undeveloped
Jeffrey Haynes “Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations” EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70, European University
Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, RELIGIOWEST.
16
Ibid. Refer also http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid. Also refer J Carrette and H Miall “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN”, Briefing
Paper, 2012.
21
Ibid. Also refer J Fox and S Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK,
2004); J Haynes An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (2nd ed) (Pearson, London, 2013a); S Thomas The
Global Transformation of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations. The Struggle for the Soul of the TwentyFirst Century (Palgrave Macmillan, New York/Basingstoke, UK, 2005).
22
Ibid. Also refer J Haynes Comparative Politics in a Globalising World (Polity, Cambridge, 2005); J Haynes, Religion and
Development: Conflict or Cooperation? (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, 2007); J Haynes An Introduction to
International Relations and Religion (2nd ed) (Pearson, London, 2013a).
15
163
countries can improve their positions. Consequently, religious views and opinions
are often heard today in relation to ethical and moral discourses regarding
increasingly divided international development outcomes, as well as ‘climate
change, global finance, disarmament, inequality, pan-epidemics and human
rights.’23 Religion (particularly through its moral attributes) is therefore increasingly
influencing the focus, values and content of global public policy at the UN.
Discussions of international religious resurgence and its impact on global public
policy overlap with another current debate in international relations: the extent to
which today’s international environment is no longer significantly secular but is
instead increasingly affected by religious norms, beliefs and values, leading to
‘postsecular’ international relations. 24 The UN has thus shifted over time from a
position where ‘religion’ was principally absent from its deliberations to one where it
is more prominent. 25 Reflecting this change, global public policy debates and
discussions at the UN have undergone a shift in emphasis from exclusively secular
and material, to including moral and ethical issues which frequently overlap with
religiously-based concerns. 26
6.3. The Religion Counts Report
In 2002, Religion Counts, an internationally recognised group of scholars and
experts organised to provide religious perspectives in the development of
international public policy produced a report regarding the analysis of religion at the
United Nations.
27
Religion Counts sought to broaden constructive religious
participation in the international arena by explaining how religion operates,
analyzing the relationship between religious and secular actors, and highlighting
“best practices” among religious groups. 28 Its goal was to positively enhance
religion’s voice in the public realm by providing valuable practical information for
religious groups and their secular partners in dialogue.29 Three facts emerged from
the field research: (1) religion is indeed present at the UN; (2) religion’s role at the
UN is unclear to many people; and (3) religious individuals and groups at the UN do
not have a unified perspective on either the issues before the UN or the appropriate
role of religion in the UN.30
Ibid. Also refer J Carrette and H Miall “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN” Briefing
Paper, 2012:3.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
23
164
The Religion Counts report proclaims most sociologists have abandoned the
once-influential secularisation theory that religion would inevitably recede in
importance in all modern societies. 31 Religion continues to play a major role in
individual lives, inter-group relations, and international politics.32 The UN, however,
does not promote any one religion in allowing participation by many religions.
Neither does the UN promote “religion” per se; rather it accepts it as one worldview
among others in the forum of international activity. 33
The situation becomes extremely complex when religious and political structures
mesh, even though political structures will always interlink with one worldview or
philosophy, such as secularism and the notion of the “separation of church and
state.” As one UN official quoted, “Despite my strong belief in secularism I do believe
that we have to be liberal when it comes to the registration of non-governmental
organisations. And if there are non-governmental organisations which are religious
in origin, I think we cannot make that a basis for excluding them.” 34 Another UN
official emphasized religious NGOs, “have every right to be in the panorama of the
UN, just as much as other NGOs there.” 35 However, this right of participation is
contingent: “If they are found to be violating the basic rules of the UN, then of course
they have to leave, but otherwise I have not noticed an overabundance of religious
NGOs or religious extremism in the UN. Religions have much to offer the UN, in that
they have codified the fundamental ethics by which people seek better lives.”36
Hilario G Davide, the former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the
Philippine Mission to the UN, has stated, “The UN is an intergovernmental
mechanism, and governments are wary of directly cooperating with religions. On
the other side, religions do not believe that they are inferior or subordinate to
governments or even to other religions because they function in a world distinct from
the secular concerns of intergovernmental cooperation.” 37 What has changed,
stated Ambassador Davide, is the emergence of a new understanding that closer
collaboration with religions is critical to a wide range of UN efforts, not only in
development but also to the UNs main mission of promoting peace and security. 38
“If we are to go over the statements of the more than 80 high-level personalities who
attended the High-Level Dialogue on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding
and Cooperation for Peace [October 2007],” said Ambassador Davide, “we will note
that several speakers alluded to the importance for the interaction between the UN
31
Ibid.
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
One Country: The Online Newsletter of the Baha’I International Community Volume 19, Issue 2, January-March 2008.
38
Ibid.
32
165
system and the faith communities in the discharge of the three pillars of the UN
goals, namely, the promotion of peace, development and human dignity.” 39 “One of
the conclusions that could be drawn,” he added, “is that the partnership between
and among governments, the UN system and religious NGOs or faith communities
is no longer an option but a necessity.” 40
New initiatives are now arising from a vast range of issue areas, involving many
UN bodies and agencies. For example, the UNDPs initiative with the ARC on climate
change aims at concrete action. Under the terms of that initiative, Baha’i, Buddhist,
Christian, Taoist, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Sikh and Zoroastrian leaders
have committed their communities to projects that address climate change and the
protection of the natural environment in “practical ways.” 41 The number of religious
NGOs at the UN is also visibly increasing. Religious voices multiplied and
strengthened as global civil society matured in the 1990’s following a general lull
during the Cold War years. The Religion Counts Report states many sources point
to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or the
“Earth Summit”) and the 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development (ICPD) as important milestones of increased religious NGO
participation at the UN.42
Religion has even been said to have become ‘fashionable’ according to Marie
Juul Petersen.
43
For example, there have been an increasing number of
conferences, seminars, reports and books dealing with the subject, with an
analogous sum of researchers taking a strong interest.44 Petersen states there are
a number of reasons for this ‘religious turn’ among scholars and practitioners. First,
events and phenomena testifying to the continued importance of religion in public
life have questioned both the secularisation theory as well as the modernisation
theory often laying the ground for these assumptions. 45 Instead of disappearing
altogether, religion has become even more visible (for example, the 1979 Iranian
revolution, the emergence of the Evangelical right as a political force in the United
States, the role of the Catholic Church in the democratic transitions in Eastern
Europe, and the growth of the Pentecostal movement in Latin America, and also the
events of September 11 and the emergence of militant Islamism).46
39
Ibid. See Appendix H for Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society of the High Level Dialogue of the
General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002.
43
Marie Juul Petersen, “International Religious NGOs at the United Nations: A Study Group of Religious Organizations” Journal
of Humanitarian Assistance (November 2010) sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847#_ednref51.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid. See also Jose Casanova Public Religions in the Modern World (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).
46
Ibid.
166
Second, there has been a huge increase in the number and visibility of religious
organisations involved in humanitarian aid and development. Although religious
organisations have throughout history provided aid to the poor, in recent years
contemporary religious organisations such as NGOs, charities and community
associations have achieved particular prominence. 47 For example, in the United
States, government funding for religious based organisations almost doubled from
10.5 per cent in 2001 to 19.9 per cent in 2005.48 Likewise, states Petersen, some of
the largest international NGOs are religious with World Vision alone retaining an
annual budget of 1.6 billion US dollars. 49 Locally, religious organisations are often
some of the most important service providers. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example,
the World Bank estimates that as much as 50 per cent of all health and education
services are provided by religious organisations.50
Third, the failures of the structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and
1990s prompted much criticism from NGOs, grassroots movements and religious
organisations, accusing the World Bank and other major actors for promoting a
narrow economic conception of development.51 This resulted in a move away from
state and market-led approaches to a broader holistic conception of development,
focusing on ‘civil society’, ‘human development’, and ‘participation’. Religious
organisations were thus seen as legitimate actors in the field of development and
humanitarian aid.52 In 2000, this was cemented further by the World Bank’s study
Voices of the Poor which concluded that many poor people had more confidence in
religious organisations than in government or secular organisations.53
Petersen states these trends and events have prompted a reconceptualisation
of aid discourses and practices, with a greater recognition of religion and religious
organisations as important and indispensable factors.54 This has been shown in the
creation of various initiatives to strengthen cooperation with religious organisations,
including the Dutch Knowledge Forum for Religion and Development Policy,
established in collaboration between NGOs, researchers and the Dutch Ministry of
Foreign Affairs; the World Bank’s Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics (see
section 6.5 below); and the UK Department for International Development’s seminar
47
Ibid.
Ibid. See also Rick James “What is Distinctive about FBOs?” INTRAC Praxis Paper no. 22 (2009) p 5.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid. See also Duncan McDuie-Ra and John A Rees (2008) “Religious Actors, Civil Society and the Development Agenda: the
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion” Arts Papers and Journal Articles University of Notre Dame Australia, p 2.
53
Ibid. See Deepa Narayan et al Voices of the Poor (World Bank, Washington DC, 2000).
54
Ibid.
48
167
series Faith and Development, hosted in cooperation with the Tony Blair
Foundation, Islamic Relief, World Vision and Oxfam.55
6.4. Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy
In order to advance understanding of the role of religion in world affairs and to
develop a framework to appropriately integrate religion into U.S. foreign policy, the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs sponsored an independent Task Force on
Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy in 2008.56 For the purposes of the
report, religion was defined as an established system of belief, practice, and ritual
based in a collective affirmation of a transcendent or otherworldly reality that
encompasses and gives ultimate meaning to earthly existence.57
During the five Task Force meetings, which comprised thirty-two high-level and
influential policymakers, academics, constitutional lawyers, religious leaders, and
members of the media, participants engaged in conversations about how to best
use all the tools available to more successfully engage religion internationally.58 The
Executive Summary stated that although religion has been a major force in the daily
lives of individuals and communities for millennia, recent data indicates the salience
of religion is increasing the world over. 59 Once considered a “private” matter by
Western policymakers, religion is now playing an increasingly influential role – both
positive and negative – in the public sphere on many different levels.60 Religious
actors are central players in local, national, and international life, from providing
basic services in impoverished areas of the world to influencing larger social,
economic, and political developments; shaping important international debates; and
advancing the goals of peace, justice, and freedom.61 However, just as globalisation
and communication technologies have supported positive religious developments,
they have also facilitated the growth of extremist religious views and the
development of dangerous terrorist networks.62 Thus events such as the September
11 attacks and the struggle with intra-religious conflict in Iraq have more recently
concentrated the attention of many policymakers on religion as a “problem” or
55
Ibid. For further information about the Dutch Knowledge Forum for Religion and Development Policy, see www.religie-enontwikkeling.nl. For the Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, www.worldbank.org; and for the seminar series Faith and
Development, www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org.
56
R. Scott Appleby and Richard Cizik (co-chairs) Report of the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy
Sponsored by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago, 2010.
57
Ibid. While indigenous faiths and new religions or sects are very much part of the global reality, the report was more focused
on multigenerational, transnational religions organised around institutions, leaders, and disciples or followers – adherents who
normally number in the millions worldwide, but who are supremely local in their influence and impact. This included Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam, which are all self-consciously missionary religions, and other religious traditions that have become global
through their diasporas, including Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.
168
threat.63 But, a focus on religion through the lens of terrorism and counterterrorism
strategy is too narrow – and even then still poorly understood. This limited focus has
caused many U.S. decision makers to overlook and undervalue the influential role
of religious leaders and communities in helping address vexing global problems and
promoting peace.64
The report states that although it is clear religious actors will continue to present
major challenges to security issues, there will also be enormous opportunities to
create new alliances and forge new paths. 65 Therefore, the United States
government will not only need to develop a far greater understanding of religion’s
role in politics and society around the globe – including a detailed knowledge of
religious communities, leaders, and trends – it must also move beyond traditional
state-to-state relations to develop effective policies for engaging religious
communities within and across nations. 66 A clear framework that allows actors
within and outside government to better understand and respond to religiously
inspired actors and events in a way that supports those doing good, while isolating
those that invoke the sacred to sow violence and confusion is now required.67
The Task Force identified six principal patterns that together reflect religion’s
increasing importance in international affairs:68
1. The influence of religious groups is growing in many areas of the world and affects
virtually all sectors of society, from politics and culture to business and science.
2. Changing patterns of religious identification in the world are having significant
political implications.
3. Religion has benefitted and been transformed by globalisation, but it also has
become a primary means of organising opposition to it.
4. Religion is playing an important public role where governments lack capacity and
legitimacy in periods of economic and political stress.
5. Religion is often used by extremists as a catalyst for conflict and a means of
escalating tensions with other religious communities.
6. The growing salience of religion today is deepening the political significance of
religious freedom as a universal human right and a source of social and political
stability.
63
Ibid.
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
64
169
The report states that although each of these trends is interesting, they are not
necessarily consequential when taken alone. 69 Yet they combine to become a
powerful force on the local, national, and international stage, making them
impossible to ignore in the conduct of foreign policy if the United States is to achieve
its strategic aims. It will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
important goals, including development objectives, conflict resolution, and the
promotion of social and human rights, without understanding the religious context. 70
Thus, the United Nations, its major specialized agencies like UNICEF and
UNESCO, the World Bank, and others would benefit from a better understanding of
religious dynamics in the contemporary world as they carry out their respective
missions. 71
The United Nations has taken a step in the right direction by including religious
organisations in the Millennium Development Goals. Nevertheless, more needs to
be done to institutionalize and broaden the links between the United Nations and
religious institutions. 72 The Task Force report states the United States should
encourage these efforts and play a leading role in interfaith dialogue that occurs in
multilateral forums (both governmental and nongovernmental) such as the UN’s
Alliance of Civilizations, the Parliament of World Religions, and meetings of the G8 and the G-20.73 The consultations should include cooperation on specific issues,
where religious leaders can play an important role in the broader international effort
to tackle these challenges.74
6.5. The World Bank and the World Faiths Development Dialogue
The issue of how the World Bank relates to civil society, including faith institutions,
is an important and long-standing area of concern.75 The Bank is an institution that
is profoundly respectful of its relations with the governments that are its
shareholders. It works in partnership with them to determine how to structure loans,
credits, and grants and who will implement programs.76 The primacy of the World
Bank’s relationships with governments gains much attention, particularly in
countries where democratic institutions and traditions are not well developed, but
also in countries with active public inclusion.77 The World Bank of the past had been
69
Ibid.
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
Katherine Marshall “Faith and Development: Rethinking Development Debates” speech, Development Dialogue on Values
and Ethics, The World Bank, June, 2005 at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/PARTNERS/EXTDEVDIALOGUE/0,,contentMDK:20478626~men
uPK:64192472~pagePK:64192523~piPK:64192458~theSitePK:537298,00.html.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
70
170
exceedingly limited in its relations with most entities outside governments, only
relating to them through the lens of government guidance. 78 Meetings with civil
society were in many countries rare and often artificial.79
Katherine Marshall states the enduring propensity by the World Bank to employ
dry, technical economics-speak contributed to an impression of exclusiveness.80
Although the Bank recognized that accessible language is critical for the public
engagement that underlies development success, it did not always put that precept
into practice.81 World Bank circles also seldom used the language of ethics and
values, and of spirituality, which faith institutions reasonably expect to
hear.
82
Marshall maintains this deepens misperceptions as development
institutions are strongly ethical in their origins. 83 They are also strongly ethical in the
rules governing financial management, procurement and project evaluation, among
other aspects of their work. 84 But misperceptions are difficult to refute, given
institutional design, which tends to be data-laden and "preachy” in the certainty of
tone and tendency to prescribe.85 Finally, states Marshall, there is the perception
and the reality of the “balance of power” among institutions.86 “Faith institutions often
describe a David-and-Goliath situation, wherein the mighty World Bank evinces little
regard for poor governments facing the Damocles sword of acute fiscal crisis with
limited resources and voice, and for smaller institutions and actors.” 87 Such
perceptions are undeniably factors in how relationships between faith and
development organisations take form.88
Over recent years, however, this situation has changed considerably and the
World Bank now has various partnerships and relationships with a large array of
institutions.89 Among the most dynamic are those with civil society organisations.90
One result is the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD), a small, autonomous
institution founded in 1998, which engages in dialogue and action on poverty,
culture and diversity, services to the poor, and equity. Established by James D.
Wolfensohn, then President of the World Bank, and Lord George Carey, then
Archbishop of Canterbury, the purpose of the organisation was to bridge the gap
between the worlds of faith and secular development. 91 Wolfensohn particularly,
78
Ibid.
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
85
Ibid.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid. However, financing relationships for normal Bank business will always be the province of governments which decide
when and for what purpose they will borrow or accept grants and how the programs will be executed.
91
World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about.
79
171
had increasingly recognised the limits of state and government-centred
development approaches.92 As President, he was hearing a lot of criticism from faith
institutions concerning the Bank. 93 The Jubilee 2000 provided one of the most
prominent examples of criticism but there were many religious voices in the 50
Years is Enough campaign, the anti-globalisation protests, and critiques of
structural adjustment of privatisation of water. Wolfensohn had a sense that the
religious community and the Bank shared many interests but were continually at
loggerheads over numerous issues. This realisation inspired Wolfensohn to openly
engage and discuss issues of opposition. 94 Wolfensohn also saw religious or faith
organisations as the largest distribution system in the world, with a presence in
virtually every community.95 He was inspired by the Voices of the Poor results and
the trust levels of faith leaders, leading to an understanding that it was imperative
to engage with religion on important issues.96 Wolfensohn was also impressed by
data regarding the role of faith organisations in education and health. Since
education and health are so central to the Millennium Development goals and to the
poverty mandate of the development institutions, it appeared illogical that faith and
development organisations were not working together more effectively in these
areas.97
The idea of the WFDD was first introduced at a meeting at Lambeth Palace,
London, in February 1998.98 The meeting brought together a small group of senior
leaders from nine major world faiths.99 A practical outcome of the meeting was the
founding of an office in Oxford, England. The organisation had two immediate
mandates: (1) To pursue work involving both World Bank staff and faith
representatives on several themes at the country level, including hunger and food
security; environmental sustainability; preservation of cultural heritage (including
sacred sites); violence and post-conflict reconstruction; and education and social
service delivery; and (2) religious communities were invited to “influence the thinking
of the World Bank by participating in the studies and discussions embodied in the
Bank's annual World Development Reports.” 100
Katherine Marshall “Religion and International Development” Interview with Pew Research: Religion and Public Life Project,
March 6, 2006, Washington D.C. at http://www.pewforum.org/2006/03/06/religion-and-international-development/.
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
95
Ibid.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid. Discussions about WFDD’s roles were shaped by the global discussions around the turn of the new millennium, including
the formulation in late 2000 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). WFDD was invited to take a lead role in organizing
the segment on poverty during an unprecedented global gathering of world religious leaders at the United Nations which
preceded the Millennium Summit of world leaders. As the MDGs took form over the next year, WFDD’s network engaged in
reflections and articulated a series of ideas about how faith communities could and should be involved.
98
World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about.
99
Ibid.
100
Ibid.
92
172
A second meeting was convened in November 1999, in Washington, D.C. The
Washington meeting included many of the leaders who had participated at Lambeth,
but was broadened to include Michel Camdessus, then Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a much extended group of World Bank
senior staff.101 The strategic importance of maintaining discourse between leaders
from the faith and development communities was again highlighted. 102 The
participants of the meeting agreed on the need for a formal organisational base and
adequate resources to do the job. They commissioned a strategic review,
undertaken on a pro bono basis by Bain & Company.103 The review culminated in a
decision in May 2000 to move forward with a small but properly constituted and
funded organisation.104 Much of the funding for the initial launch of the new World
Faith Development Dialogue was contributed by the leaders represented at the
meeting.105
A decision that WFDD would be UK-based and be a legally registered charity
under UK law was established. A series of seminars were undertaken at Harvard
University (financed by His Highness the Aga Khan) to discuss the foundation of the
work, as well as a study of various possible headquarters locations. 106 With
substantial World Bank support, pilot work designed to test different models of
engagement proceeded in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Guatemala. 107 A consultation
process about faith approaches to poverty in several world regions resulted in a
paper that fed into the 2000-2001 World Development Report.108
From late 2000 to early 2001, the World Bank’s Executive Directors were briefed
about the proposals for WFDD and planned World Bank involvement.109 Discussion
ensued as to the nature of the World Bank’s partnership with world religions
generally and the WFDD more specifically.110 The faith leaders who had participated
in the two initial dialogue events were then invited to participate. The result was a
restructuring of the concept and governance structure of the WFDD.111 The most
significant change was an agreement that the World Bank would not associate itself
formally or be a party to the governance of the organisation, though it would actively
participate in dialogue and action led by the WFDD.112
101
Ibid.
Ibid.
103
Ibid. Bain and Company are a management consulting firm employed by many of the world’s business leaders.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid. See also World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty (Oxford University Press, USA, 2000). The report
argues that major reductions in all dimensions of poverty are indeed possible—that the interaction of markets, state institutions,
and civil societies can harness the forces of economic integration and technological change to serve the interests of poor people
and increase their share of society's prosperity.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.
102
173
Table 1 below summarises the various critiques that were put forward by the
World Bank’s executive directors, then representing over 180 countries. 113 In sum,
they perceived the dialogue effort as entering into “dangerous political waters given
the controversies around religion.”114 They were also concerned by the patriarchal
approaches that characterized many religious institutions.115 Many still clung to the
long-accepted assumption that religion’s roles in public matters had declined and
would continue to decline with modernisation.116
Table 1: Issues That Often Feature in Secular-Faith Dialogue
Issues that often feature in secular-faith dialogue
Gaps: Secular perceptions/questions about the work of faith-based
groups
Concern
Issues
Examples
Response
Political and
Divisive
Competition
among groups
makes
cooperation
impossible,
proselytizing is
the primary
motivation,
complexity,
religion
contributes to
conflicts
Religious
conflict, “sheep
stealing,”
jealousies within
faith
communities,
engagement
with political
parties, desire
for power,
concerns about
finance, which
is often untransparent
Importance of
religious
communities
and leaders in
peace building
and conflict
resolution,
examples of
cooperation,
important
contributions to
social
cohesion, trust
that
communities
express for
religious
leaders and
institutions
Dangerous to
progress and
modernisation
Gender roles,
reproductive
health and
women’s health
rights,
association of
religion and
patriarchy, links
to status quo
HIV and AIDS
debates, lack of
women in
formal religious
leadership and
in community
structures
Religious
voices are
often at
forefront of
social
progress,
represent
prophetic
voices calling
for reform and
social justice
113
Katherine Marshall Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013) 192-193.
Ibid.
115
Ibid.
116
Ibid.
114
174
Low priority,
religion is
essentially
defunct in
modern
societies or
relegated to
private sphere
Assumption that
religiosity
declines with
modernisation
Many dismiss
religion as a
factor in
development,
“radar screen
turned off”
Increasing
evidence of
staying power
of religion in
modern life,
albeit often in
new forms
Emotional and
personal
approach to
religion
Experience of
parallels in early
and subsequent
approaches to
gender issues,
limited evidence
a roadblock,
approaches to
religion shaped
by personal
views of leaders
Institutional
leaders and
strategies in
international
bodies tend to
reflect individual
views rather
than a wellarticulated
approach
Garner and
present facts,
need for a
professional
approach,
thoughtful
exploration of
diverse roles
Gaps: Religious perceptions/questions about work of secular
development institutions
Query/issue
Concern
Examples
Response
Development is
about Empire
Power of US and
wealthy
countries,
multinationals,
seen as driving
their approach
and agendas
Agricultural
subsidies,
weight of power
in international
institutions
Slow progress
is being made
in shifting
balance, focus
on country-led
processes,
efforts at
empowerment
and voice
Institutions are
often mute on
ethics, or worse,
seen as Godless
and without
values
Greed is the
creed,
development
undermines
cultures and
traditions
Consumption
and western
style flaunted in
the media,
support for large
land purchases,
GMO promotion
Dams, decline
in traditions and
families
Recognise and
address
contending
ethical
dimensions,
purposeful
dialogue
Effects of
development
Damage to
communities,
disruptions from
change,
undermining
families
Dams, decline
in traditions and
families
Recognise
complexity
Economics as
theology
Mysterious and
seemingly rigid
Push for
privatisation,
free trade
Dialogue
175
The discipline
and institutions
are enigmatic
Can’t understand
how financing
works
Bewildering
jargon
“grandmother
economics”:
make sure
concepts are
clear and
understandable
Development is
simply
dangerous
Beware those
who urge and
profess it
Behaviour and
attitudes of
institutions and
economists
Dialogue
The faith and development institution leader meetings would continue but under
World Bank leadership. Joint activities, including tailored training events for faith
community leaders on development topics and research on areas of poverty
reduction of common concern, were projected in areas which fit the World Bank’s
mandate and instruments.117 These agreements were formalized in a Memorandum
of Understanding signed in May 2002.118
As a legally constituted UK-charity, WFDD, with Dr. Michael Taylor as its new
Executive Director, began operations in late 2000 at Birmingham University.119 The
organisation focused its work on a series of consultations on the World
Development Reports and on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. 120 WFDD
also undertook a consultation process on faith roles in service delivery and on
culture, religion, and development. At this time, WFDD functioned principally as a
modest, informal network and as a policy think-tank offering advice and support to
the World Bank and faith leaders.121
The World Bank has continued to maintain an office responsible for relationships
with faith communities, (first called the Office on Faiths, and later renamed the
Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics (DDVE)).122 The DDVE focused on an
expanding set of partnerships, interfaith and faith specific, on high level leadership
meetings, and on case studies of cooperation between the worlds of faith and
development.123 It provided a wide range of operational support but the mandate of
the office and its director were focused on engaging with those outside the Bank, to
learn from their perspectives, and to build on positive engagement between the
worlds of faith and development at the country and global levels.124 Around this time
117
World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about.
Ibid.
119
Ibid.
120
Ibid. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers provide the basis for World Bank and IMF assistance as well as debt relief under the
HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative. PRSPs should be country-driven, comprehensive, partnership-oriented, and
participatory. A country only needs to write a PRSP every three years; however, changes can be made to the content of a PRSP
using an Annual Progress Report.
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Ibid.
118
176
the World Bank also engaged with an early WFDD partner, Martin Palmer and the
Alliance of Religions for Conservation (ARC), on a series of global meetings and
country-based actions on religion and the environment.125
A third meeting of faith and development leaders was called in Canterbury,
England, in October 2002.126 It was inspired both by the MDGs and by a renewed
awareness following the events of September 11 of religion’s roles in international
affairs. The agenda for the Canterbury meeting, largely organized and financed by
the World Bank, was centered on the question of how religious leaders and
organisations could work more effectively with development organisations to
advance the MDGs.127 In preparing for the Canterbury meeting, the DDVE at the
World Bank undertook an inventory of work within the Bank that involved
partnerships with faith organisations. The inventory work highlighted the major gaps
in existing information, including the dearth of evaluation work carried out by faith
organisations.128 These kinds of evaluations were and are crucial to understanding
the potential role of faith organisations in addressing development challenges and
in “mapping” the contributions of faith organisations.
The years 2005-2008 were a transition period for the WFDD. It wound down its
operations in England, after Wolfensohn’s departure from the World Bank, and it
was reconstituted in the U.S.129 The centre of activity shifted to the World Bank,
where knowledge and partnership has continued as the central focus.
6.6. Obstacles facing religious engagement in the international
arena
As the World Bank example has illustrated, attitudes and biases at the international
level can pose obstacles to religious participation and effectiveness. Marshall
maintains there are four major reasons why people react so negatively to specifically
religious participation in a secular international scenario. 130 First, religion is viewed
by many in the secular development world as potentially divisive and potentially
political. 131 Considerable tensions are brought about by religious organisations
contesting among themselves. They are seen as competing for adherents,
competing for resources, and generating or contributing to conflicts within society.
125
Ibid.
Ibid.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
129
WFDDs trustees decided in 2005 that the United Kingdom location was not optimal for achieving WFDDs objectives and
therefore decided to reconstitute the WFDD as a US-based organisation. The reasons were to allow WFDD to work more closely
with the World Bank and other major development organisations, and to develop stronger links with the United States
administration and the United Nations. This process was supported by the World Bank and proceeded as planned.
130
Katherine Marshall “Religion and International Development” Interview with Pew Research: Religion and Public Life Project,
March 6, 2006, Washington D.C. at http://www.pewforum.org/2006/03/06/religion-and-international-development/.
131
Ibid.
126
177
Since the international financial organisations are explicitly required to avoid
involvement in internal political affairs, and since for so many governments or states,
the separation of church and state is an important principle, an active religious
presence is a cause for much concern.132
The second complex set of issues, states Marshall, is that for many in the secular
development world, religion has been seen as dangerous.133 It has been seen as
counter to modernisation and counter to the kinds of developments that are being
promoted. Religions tend to support the continuation of traditional, often patriarchal
societal structures, and of not being open to evidence and to the kind of universal
rights that underpin the development world. 134 Marshall gives the example of
reproductive health rights and the rights of women, in which a number of different
religious organisations (the Vatican but also Islamic groups) have come together in
opposition to some developments for women’s reproductive health rights. 135 One
effect of this, says Marshall, is that some in the development world hesitate to have
any engagement with religious organisations because their view is tainted by
tensions that have been generated around these specific issues and the wider rights
of women.136
Marshall contends the third objection stems from the often unspoken idea that
religion is basically defunct or not very relevant; that religion with modernisation
becomes less important; and from the conclusion that religion is essentially a lower
priority than other areas and is therefore not an area that is explicitly engaged in. 137
People approach religion based on their own experiences and their own views or
faith. This presents difficulties in bringing the objective importance of the issues to
the fore or to have a reasoned discussion about where faith and development come
together than would appear obvious from looking at some of the numbers and the
dynamics in the world.138 Many in the development world have a stereotyped view
of what faith means in faith organisations. They believe it is essentially about
preaching and services and sometimes about the old opiate-of-the-masses types of
argument.139
The fourth and more complex issue emphasizes the disparity between
development and religious organisations. Development organisations are
profoundly evidence-based whereas the tradition within faith communities is to infer
132
Ibid.
Ibid.
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid.
136
Ibid.
137
Ibid.
138
Ibid.
139
Ibid.
133
178
from a theological perspective (as opposed to what is actually seen and can be
demonstrated).140
6.7. Conclusion
Although there is still hesitation on behalf of some international institutions and
religious entities to work together, along with complex issues requiring resolutions,
the research this chapter presented testifies to the growing importance and
relevance of religion in public life. Instead of disappearing altogether, as presumed
by secular theorists, religion has become even more visible. The number of religious
NGOs at the UN is also visibly increasing. For example, Caritas Internationalis (CI),
Religions for Peace (RfP), and the United Methodist Church (General Board of
Church and Society) (UMC) are all working with UN agencies and programmes at
headquarters level, as well as having an extensive international network with a local
presence in many countries. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has
also stressed the particular contribution which religious communities and religious
NGOs can make to strengthen a value-oriented UN and its democratic
accountability:141
Only a morally robust UN can, realistically, draw up and help to realise the elements of a
democratic compact. For this, the contribution of religious communities will be essential –
though it is also a challenge to those communities to develop with appropriate rigour a
theology of democratic accountability and environmental care.
Although the United Nations has taken a step in the right direction by including
religious organisations in the Millennium Development Goals,142 more needs to be
done to institutionalise and broaden the links between religious groups and United
Nations bodies. A shift from statements and expressions of intent to supportable
collaborations will require a great deal of cooperation and a consensus which is able
to accommodate a worldwide and very diverse coalition of stakeholders. Consensus
will remain difficult to achieve as long as religious and secular actors remain locked
in separate epistemic communities. The most important step requires a conceptual
140
Ibid.
Rowan Williams ‘Internationalism and Beyond’ (speech given on June 18, 2004, Greenwich, CT). See
archives:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1204.
142
Given the strong moral approach of RNGOs and their widely held belief in the duty to serve the whole of humankind, it is not
surprising that the MDGs are of specific interest for the religious NGOs at the UN and provide a focus for their work and
advocacy. Religions for Peace (RfP – previously known as World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP)), a globally
operating, inter-religious NGO with ECOSOC consultative status, has together with the UN Millennium Campaign and the UN
Development Programme produced a booklet entitled Faith in Action: Working Towards the Millennium Development Goals. This
short booklet, organised as a toolkit for religious leaders and communities, states as its purpose the equipping of ‘religious
leaders and inter-religious councils to carry out advocacy and action campaigns – at the community, national, regional and global
levels – to support achievement of the MDGs’. In 2005, the Temple of Understanding (an RNGO accredited at the UN with
ECOSOC consultative status) convened a conference with a group of other organisations (the Consultation on Interfaith
Education) On the Role of American Religious Communities in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: A Consultation.
More than 40 religious organisations, among them major national and international RNGOs, attended it.
141
179
breakthrough acknowledging the security of our planet and the shared responsibility
for managing the global commons demands the kind of solidarity that transcends
the conventional nation state and laissez-faire market mechanisms. The present
efforts for genuine dialogue and learning between secular international bodies and
religious organisations are a promising and welcoming sign for future cohesion and
inclusive religious presence in the international arena. The following chapter
completes the dialogue by proposing several options for a religious environmental
organisation within the United Nations system.
180
Proposals for the Establishment of a Religious
Body at the UN
7.1. Introduction
An argument often expressed by prominent religious leaders, religious NGOs,
scholars and politicians maintains the unique ethical, material and spiritual
resources of the world’s religious communities can make a major contribution to
tackling the critical issues of our time, especially through collaborative efforts in
multi-stakeholder coalitions. 1 The preceding chapter has indicated that the UN,
although still struggling with some complex issues, is becoming more receptive
toward involvement and collaboration with religious organisations, particularly in
areas such as development and humanitarian concerns. It is upon this argument
that the ambitious proposal for a religious environmental body at the UN rests. The
first option places the organisation within the current UNFCCC framework, set up
as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a Secretariat administered through the
COP. This civil society body would comprise religious membership, in addition to
other members of civil society with expertise in global ethical concerns. The second
option is to position a religious organisation directly within the United Nations system
either as a traditional NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ
via the General Assembly or the Security Council.
These propositions will be discussed in turn below.
7.2. Establishment of an interreligious organisation under UNFCCC
7.2.1. Current structure of the UNFCCC
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an
international environmental treaty that was established at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (informally known as the
Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. The treaty is aimed at stabilizing
greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. 2 As originally
framed, the treaty set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for
individual nations and contained no enforcement provisions. It is therefore
Josef Boehle “The UN System and Religious Actors in the Context of Global Change” CrossCurrents, Volume 60, Issue 3, 9
Sep 2010: 391-392.
2
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php.
1
181
considered legally non-binding.
3
By 1995, countries realised that emission
reductions provisions in the Convention were inadequate. Negotiations were
launched to strengthen the global response to climate change, and by 1997, the
Kyoto Protocol was adopted.4 The Kyoto Protocol legally binds developed countries
to emission reduction targets. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008
and ended in 2012. The second commitment period began on 1 January 2013 and
will end in 2020.5
There are now 195 Parties to the Convention and 192 Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol. 6 The UNFCCC secretariat supports all institutions involved in the
international climate change negotiations, particularly the Conference of the Parties
(COP), the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP),
the subsidiary bodies (which advise the COP/CMP), and the COP/CMP Bureau
(which deals mainly with procedural and organisational issues arising from the
COP/CMP and also has technical functions).7 See Figure 1 below:
Figure 1 Organisational Structure of UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol 8
Since the UNFCCC entered into force, the parties have been meeting annually in
Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to assess progress in dealing with climate
change. The Conference of the Parties is the supreme decision-making body of the
3
Ibid.
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/bodies/items/6241.php.
4
182
UNFCCC. 9 All states are represented at the COP, at which they review the
implementation of the Convention and any other legal instruments that the COP
adopts and take decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the
Convention, including institutional and administrative arrangements.10
The Convention divides countries into three main groups according to differing
commitments:11

Annex I Parties include the industrialised countries that were members of the OECD
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) in 1992, plus countries
with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including the Russian Federation, the
Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States.

Annex II Parties consist of the OECD members of Annex I, but not the EIT Parties.
They are required to provide financial resources to enable developing countries to
undertake emissions reduction activities under the Convention and to help them
adapt to adverse effects of climate change. In addition, they have to “take all
practicable steps” to promote the development and transfer of environmentally
friendly technologies to EIT Parties and developing countries. Funding provided by
Annex II Parties is channeled mostly through the Convention’s financial mechanism.

Non-Annex I Parties are mostly developing countries. Certain groups of developing
countries are recognised by the Convention as being especially vulnerable to the
adverse impacts of climate change, including countries with low-lying coastal areas
and those prone to desertification and drought. Others (such as countries that rely
heavily on income from fossil fuel production and commerce) feel more vulnerable
to the potential economic impacts of climate change response measures.
Several categories of observer organisations also attend sessions of the COP and
its subsidiary bodies. These include representatives of United Nations secretariat
units and bodies, such as UNDP, UNEP and UNCTAD, as well as its specialised
agencies and related organisations, such as the GEF and WMO/UNEP
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
(IPCC).
12
Other observer
organisations include intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), such as the OECD
and International Energy Agency (IEA), along with non-governmental organisations
(NGOs).13
9
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6383.php.
Ibid.
11
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
10
183
7.2.2. Articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC (objective and principles)
The two provisions most clearly relevant to future action under the UNFCCC are
Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 establishes the objective of not only the Convention itself,
but “any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt.”
Any legal instrument that helped address climate change would arguably be
consistent with this objective, even if it did not fully achieve it. 14
Pursuant to Article 2, the ultimate objective is to achieve stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should
be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. 15 To achieve the
objective and to implement its provisions, Article 3 states the Parties should be
guided inter alia, by the following:
3:1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future
generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.16
Inclusion of the term ‘inter alia’ suggests that the list of principles is not intended to
be exhaustive, and that future actions by the Parties might also be guided by other
considerations not explicitly elaborated.17
7.2.3. Establishment of an Ethical Panel for Climate Change under UNFCCC
The first proposal for religious involvement pursuant to the UNFCCC process is for
the establishment of an Ethical Panel for Climate Change (EPCC). This Panel would
work in parallel with the IPCC as a civil society, rather than intergovernmental,
entity. However, rather than establishing it as a completely religious-based body,
the Panel would consist of members across all disciplines of civil society with expert
knowledge on the ethical issues of climate change. There are numerous religious
environmental organisations that could participate (for example, the World Council
of Churches, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, and the Forum on Religion
and Ecology). Nominated members of the Earth Charter Initiative would also be
significant civil society actors within this Panel. The Earth Charter provides
Daniel Bodansky “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Paper, April 2009:5.
15
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Full Text of the Convention at
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php.
16
Ibid.
17
Daniel Bodansky “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Paper, April 2009:5.
14
184
fundamental ethical principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global
society through an integrated ethical framework. This framework could become the
foundational structure on which to build a comprehensive Ethical Panel on Climate
Change.
The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations and set
up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP).18 It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and
socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of
climate change. Similarly, an EPCC would be an ethical body under the auspices of
the United Nations and set up by the United Nations Environment Program. It would
review and assess the ethical implications of climate change and compile
information relevant to understanding the ethical nature of climate change. Although
ethical implications have been widely discussed at the international level, they have
remained subordinate to economic interests of nations. In 2009, Dr Rajendra
Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, stated the inequities and injustices that are likely
to occur on a global level because of climate change mean that world leaders must
carefully examine the moral and ethical dimensions of global warming.
The impacts of climate change are going to be inequitable, unequal, and severe in many
parts of the world. We have to think at a much higher level. And I think this is where ethics
comes in so critically as the missing dimension in this debate.
An Ethical Panel could be established pursuant to Articles 7 and 15 of the UNFCCC.
Article 7:2 (i) states the Conference of the Parties, as the supreme body of the
Convention, shall keep under regular review the implementation of the Convention
and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt, and
shall make, within its mandate, the decisions necessary to promote the effective
implementation of the Convention. To this end it shall establish such subsidiary
bodies as are deemed necessary for the implementation of the Convention. Article
7:2 (l) states the Parties shall seek and utilise, where appropriate, the services and
cooperation of, and information provided by, competent international organisations
and intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies.
Under Article 15 of the UNFCCC, the COP may adopt an amendment to the
Convention (other than an annex) by a three-quarters majority vote. The UNFCCC
does not impose any substantive limitations on what the COP might agree as an
amendment. Thus, an amendment could specify new commitments, change
18
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website at
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml#.Upf6OMTI2So.
185
existing commitments, or establish new institutions or procedures.19 Refer Figure 2
below for proposed amended structure of UNFCCC.
Figure 2: Amended Structure of UNFCCC (author’s elaboration)
Established as a new institution, the EPCC’s initial task would involve preparation
of a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of
knowledge of the ethics of climate change and possible response strategies and
elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. A
proposed Subsidiary Body for Ethical Advice would join the two permanent
subsidiary bodies to the Convention established by the COP/CMP. This new body
would support the work of the COP through the provision of information and advice
on ethical matters as they relate to the Convention. The subsidiary body for ethical
advice would be open to participation by all Parties and would be multidisciplinary.
Comprising of non- governmental and civil society representatives competent in the
relevant field of expertise it would report regularly to the Conference of the
Parties on all aspects of its work. Under the guidance of the Conference of the
Parties, and drawing upon existing competent international bodies, this body would
provide advice on ethical programmes related to climate change. It would also
respond to ethical and methodological questions that the Conference of the
Parties and
its subsidiary
bodies may
put
to
the
body.
The functions and terms of reference of this body may be further elaborated by
the Conference of the Parties.
Daniel Bodansky “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Paper, April 2009:3.
19
186
7.3. Establishment of Interreligious Council at the UN
This second proposal recommends establishment of an interreligious council at the
United Nations. It focuses on the United Nations because: (1) it is the largest
intergovernmental organisation, with 193 member states, (2) it is the most important
global public policy focus, and (3) hundreds of religious organisations already have
an institutionalised presence at the UN, via official status with the Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC).20
Overall, the UN regularly engages with more than 3000 non-governmental
organisations afforded ‘official’ UN status.21 Around 10 per cent are classified as
religious organisations, implying that their activities and goals are significantly
moulded by religious orientations and principles. 22 This, however, does not
necessarily imply that religious organisations at the UN are ‘religiously pure’, and
unwilling to work with non-religious entities, including both state and non-state
actors.23 Many are willing to interact at the UN with both state and non-state bodies
who share their ideological, although not religious, inclinations.24
Although many religious organisations are entitled presently to speak with
officials and policymakers at the UN via their institutionalised status afforded by
ECOSOC registration, this does not suggest that they are able to exert influence
consistently on global public policy debates. 25 This becomes particularly visible
when religious organisations act alone, utilising exclusively religious arguments. In
this context, religious organisations struggle to be taken seriously at the UN, with
no automatic right to be heard in global policy debates. To gain and exercise
influence at the UN necessitates that they seek partners and allies, including other
religious organisations, secular NGOs, and states who are in pursuit of shared
ideological goals.26 For example, in 2012 UNEP stated the challenges facing the
environment today have created a new urgency within faith communities to build a
global consciousness around sustainable development. 27 In addition, religious
organisations must learn to adapt to UN norms and conventions in order to be heard
and accepted.28 This means that to be significant players in global public policy
20
Jeffrey Haynes Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70 European University
Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Religiowest, 2013.
21
Ibid, Abstract.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid, 6.
26
Ibid. See also C Bob The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012).
27
United Nations Environment Programme “Global Peace Initiative of Women Convenes Environmental Conference in Kenya” at
UNEP website: http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2676&ArticleID=9061.
28
Jeffrey Haynes Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70 European University
Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Religiowest, 2013.
187
debates, they must necessarily adopt and adapt to the terms and rationale of liberal
(non-religious) discourse, even when they do not agree with it. 29
Since UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan emphasized the role of religion and
culture in his Renewing the United Nations report and in the UN Millennium
Development Goals,30 there have been numerous discussions about more actively
involving religions in the UN (as indicated in the previous chapter). There have also
been discussions regarding particular roles of religious organisations at the United
Nations. For instance, in 2003 Vladimir Petrovsky was invited to participate in a
meeting of the Interreligious and International Peace Council (IIPC) in order to
provide his analysis of why the UN is presently ill-equipped to address issues of
religion, and what would be required to organize an Interreligious Council at the
UN.31 While assuming that the UN operates under certain restrictions, it is important
to note that by failing to recognise the importance of religions and spirituality
altogether, the UN chose a path that could not but compromise its influence.32 The
result is that in analyzing the issues and trying to solve them, the UN has had a
secular bias.33
The
meeting
brought
together activists
and
experts
in
international
organisations, interreligious cooperation, conflict resolution, human security and
human development, from 25 countries of all continents. 34 Effectiveness and
objectives of a newly created Council were discussed, as well as its possible
organisational structures, programmes and initiatives. 35 Petrovsky suggests the
effectiveness of an Interreligious Council at the UN would depend entirely on its
ability to cooperate with national governments, international organisations, and civil
society institutions. 36 The key objective would be to transform the UN from the
traditional “diplomatic club” and arena of national governments’ dealings into an
inclusive international body representing different nations, ethnic, social and
professional groups with a direct influence on the decision-making process. 37
29
Ibid.
The Millennium Development Goals are to: (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary
education; (3)promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce child mortality; (5) improve maternal health; (6) combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease; (7) ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partnership for
development. On environmental protection, the Millennium Declaration stated that no efforts must be spared to counter the threat
of the planet being irredeemably spoiled by human activities. Therefore, the participants of the Summit resolved to adopt a new
ethic of conservation and stewardship.
31
Vladimir Petrovsky “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on
World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 49. The IIPC was inaugurated in October 2003 as a prototype of a new UN
body, as proposed by Dr. Sun Myung Moon, to enrich the current UN activities with spiritual and moral principles. The proposal
by Reverend Moon to establish an Interreligious Council at the United Nations complies with the mission of the United Nations
and its Millennium Development Goals, which are to provide for international peace and security and to contribute to the solution
of the global problems. Assuming the essential spiritual nature of humanity, the IPCC maintains that any successful strategy for
peace must take into account the substantial, spiritual dimension of our human identity, experience and interactions.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid, 52.
30
188
Creation of an Interreligious Council would also offer an ethical voice whereby the
United Nations could be guided by universal spiritual and moral principles in addition
to state interests. The council could develop into an integrated model of cooperation
of
diplomats,
government
officials,
academics,
journalists,
clerics,
and
businesspersons concerned with the future of the world. 38 Such a council could
become a critical agent of change within the international regime, both in terms of
philosophy and practical framework.
Petrovsky considered a model of network communication and pluralistic dialogue
to be most appropriate with the Council employing guidelines of principles,
emphasizing goals rather than structure.39 It would thus be a conscience-building
rather than a legislative form of legitimacy. 40 The organisational framework should
combine a degree of centralisation and discipline with democracy and pluralism,
being built from the grass-roots, with local and regional branches augmenting the
work of the Council executive bodies.41 Membership selection should also have a
flexible approach, to involve all existing and willing faiths and religious institutions,
as well as social and professional groups, and individuals. In this way the Council
could benefit from a variety of political, professional and moral authority and/or
experience.42
In 2010, the idea of an Interreligious Council at the UN was again raised. The
Universal Peace Federation’s United Nations Office in Geneva (UPF-UN) convened
a series of three consultations in Geneva and Bonn on the proposal. 43 It was felt
that Geneva could provide a broader perspective on the topic by proposing
recommendations of a more decentralized nature, in keeping with the structure of
the UN in Geneva.44 The structures of the new UN Human Rights Council and the
World Council of Churches were both discussed as possible models of an
Interreligious Council, with expert input from members of both.45 While the United
Nations was founded in response to conflict, an Interreligious Council should be
founded as an affirmation of humanity’s potential for peaceful coexistence and its
38
Ibid.
Ibid, 53.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Carolyn Handschin “Considering an Interreligious Council at the UN” October 4, 2010, UPF-UN Office in Geneva at
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Handschin/Handschin-101004.htm.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid. The members of the General Assembly elect the members who occupy the UNHRC's forty-seven seats. The General
Assembly takes into account the candidate States’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their
voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard. The term of each seat is three years, and no member may occupy a seat for
more than two consecutive terms. The seats are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for
Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), and seven for the Western European and
Others Group (WEOG). The previous CHR had a membership of 53 elected by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
through a majority of those present and voting. The General Assembly can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council
member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of
membership. The suspension process requires a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly. The resolution establishing
the UNHRC states that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of
human rights".
39
189
role as caring stewards of the environment.46 Carolyn Handschin, Director of UPFUN Office-Geneva, stated that although the notions of spirituality and ethics are
embedded in the UN Charter and other normative documents, they are rarely
referred to or applied. 47 In histories of the UN the spiritual dimension of the
organisation is often not acknowledged. Yet, a pervasive sense of a spiritual as well
as a practical task of world organisation can be traced to the Atlantic Charter of 1941
and many of the speeches at the San Francisco conference in 1945 which led to
the founding of the UN. 48 An Interreligious Council could aid in reviving those
essential aspects, whereby the depth of personal commitment and ownership
associated with religion and culture could be harnessed to support the fundamental
rights and freedoms that are a pillar of the work of the UN.49
7.3.1. Function and mandate
The General Assembly could request an Interreligious Council to work on certain
issues such as environmental concerns, human rights, conflicts over resources, and
differing cultural values.50 It could serve as an advisory committee, as a mid-level
structure providing data or local knowledge essential to assess the real needs. 51
The mandate could cover a more humanitarian area as well, with religious leaders
likely being aware of the needs of vulnerable groups in a timely way before their
unrest turns violent.52 For example, the General Assembly could turn to this council
and ask for insights into why certain Millennium Development Goals are not likely
to be met. It has been inferred by governments that states are eager to have access
to local information as they realise there is a gap between resolutions and
implementations and look for impartial mediators.53
7.3.2. Covenant/Charter
A covenant or charter would be important not only as a guideline for the work of the
council but also in setting standards for membership. 54 During the consultation
discussions in Geneva the participants considered it was very important that council
delegates be able to demonstrate their personal integrity and commitment to world
46
Ibid.
Ibid.
48
Hans-Martin Jaeger “Considering the Proposal for an Interreligious Council” May 7, 2009, Department of Political Science,
Carleton University, Canada at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks1/Jaeger/Jaeger-090507.htm.
49
Carolyn Handschin “Considering an Interreligious Council at the UN” October 4, 2010, UPF-UN Office in Geneva at
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Handschin/Handschin-101004.htm.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
47
190
peace and development above and beyond their duties to their own faith
communities.55
The charter would also have to answer the question of what is religion. How can
the combined moral authority of all religions be consolidated and focused into an
implementation-oriented agenda? 56 The UN usually pursues quantifiable needs,
and religion can learn from that focus. 57 For example, religion can promote
fundamentals such as compassion, sacrifice, ideals, solidarity, motivation, and will.
It was noted that most people involved in UN work personally hold these qualities in
high esteem in their private lives but may experience disconnect from them while
carrying out their tasks.58 An Interreligious Council where these fundamentals are
given priority and addressed without restrictions might beneficially influence
persons in other UN bodies.59 Supporting a tradition of widely-accepted values and
inclusive language would be essential for the discussions, proposals, and outcomes
of the council; however, there should be no discussion of dogma. 60 Ideally,
decisions should be reached by consensus and therefore it would be advisable that
delegates have a broad understanding of and experience with religions and cultures
other than their own.61
7.3.3. Structure and representation
Although in general, UN reform is usually slow and painstaking, it is likewise
conceivable the opposite is also possible. 62 For example, the institution-building
process of the Human Rights Council in Geneva had to be completed in one year
and it was achieved within that time frame. 63 There is no reason why an
Interreligious Council at the UN could not also be coordinated in a similarly short
time frame.
Questions on representation of an Interreligious Council are very important. In
particular, how to include small, local, or unrecognized religious traditions. For
example, religion is the most important focus for social mobilisation in Africa –
through traditional African religion, African Christianity, and African Islam. Any
55
Ibid.
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid. The Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council (formerly called the "Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights" of the Human Rights Commission) was discussed as a possible model. This think tank's purpose is
to ensure that the best possible expertise is made available to the Human Rights Council. Its 18 members are elected by states
and by regions; however, they represent their area of expertise and not their government's views. They are mandated to give
advice on thematic issues and give implementation-oriented recommendations. An example of a recent mandate was to review
the draft "Declaration on Human Rights Education and Learning," which was being tabled at the Council. This included defining
the term "human rights education," agreeing on indicators, and giving practical advice on means of monitoring global progress.
56
191
externally sourced adaptation initiatives which ignore, overlook or denigrate African
religiosity will not succeed, because they will be rejected as alienating innovations
by the majority of African communities to whom religion is the essence of life and
the basis for personal and communal identity.
An additional question focuses on how to ensure that people would identify this
council as a real "voice of and for the people," possibly bridging the gap felt currently
by many in developing countries toward the United Nations.64 Many people in Africa
do not relate to the UN as theirs but consider it a top-heavy network that seeks to
impose western culture on them.65 A council of religious leaders having an influence
on the UN agenda could help to bridge that gap, if there were a large enough
representation within it.66 Several options were discussed at the consultations in
Geneva and Bonn and these are summarized below.
1) The terms of the Interreligious Council charter would need to be accepted by all
religions wishing for a seat.67 One vote per state would not necessarily be allocated,
but possibly a certain number of delegates per regional grouping. It should also take
into consideration the different concerns of members of the same religion or faith
(for instance, Muslims in Jordan may have different concerns than those in
Indonesia). 68 The size of the religious communities would hold significance, but
consideration would be given to successes in the field. 69 A certain number of seats
could be assigned to smaller communities, with rotating membership. Regarding
individual delegates, being a leader in a religious community wouldn't be sufficient
as a criterion for membership. 70 Delegates would have to present personal
credentials that meet the criteria of the council's standard as specialists in fields of
peace and development, which are the mandates of the UN.71
2) It would be imperative to promote religious values and not the religions
themselves. In other words, delegates would be nominated because of the core
values they represent.72
3) A small group of advisors who would work directly with the UN Secretary-General
could be established.73 Meetings would be convened as particular situations arose
in which their advice and their positions might be beneficial. Such a group could be
64
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
65
66
192
set up comparatively quickly, since the Secretary-General can select advisors as
part of his function.74 Such an advisory group could demonstrate the very practical
ways that religion can influence positive change and promote social development
and cohesion.75
The general terms addressed above could be tailored in order to accommodate
a specifically climate change oriented Interreligious Council. Although it would need
broad expansion, a brief outline of what might be required follows:

Formulation of a charter setting up the standards for membership. (The World
Council of Churches is a global leader in religious environmental concerns and
would be an important resource in preparing such a charter).

Terms of the Charter would have to be accepted by all religious groups wishing
for a seat.

Delegates must first meet the criteria of the Council’s standard as specialists in
fields of peace and development (mandates of the UN) as well as personal
credentials that meet the criteria of the Council’s standard as specialists in the
field of climate change (and other environmental issues).

Delegates must promote environmental values and not the dogma and ritual of
their respective religions.

Delegates must be willing to acknowledge and engage with delegates from other
religions in order to seek consensus on environmental determinations.

The Council must contain delegates from each regional grouping in order for it
to be accepted as a truly global conglomeration. Individuals, groups and
communities may not place their trust in a Council with only partial global
representation.
Clearly, not any and all self-ascribed religious communities should be welcomed
into such a partnership. Religious groups who do not meet the Charter’s strict
criteria would not be accepted – thus ruling out membership of any ‘dubious’
religious groups. It would also not be expected that religious groups with no or little
interest in environmental issues would wish to participate.
7.3.4. Incorporation into the UN system
Within the current UN Charter, the Council could become a “traditional” international
NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, performing merely an advisory function. 76 In
74
Ibid.
Ibid.
76
Vladimir Petrovsky “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on
World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 53.
75
193
order to achieve its goals and objectives, the Council could refer to Article 68 of the
Charter, which reads:
The Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in economic and social fields
and for the promotion of human rights, and such other commissions as may be required for
the performance of its functions.77
The Charter further reads the ECOSOC:
may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations
which are concerned with matters within its competence.78
An Interreligious Council could take both a “soft” and “hard” approach to the United
Nations reformation.79 The “soft” approach would entail “built-in” attempts to exploit
possibilities of the current Charter and of the present UN system, with no aim of
changing them drastically.80 To such an extent, the provisions of Articles 22 and 29
of the Charter could be referred to, that the General Assembly and the Security
Council may establish subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance
of their functions.81 In the case of the Security Council, such an attempt could bring
substantial changes to the vast range of UN activities related to international peace
and security. Civil society institutions such as an Interreligious Council could make
a difference, keeping in mind weaknesses and constraints of the UN, which have
been in contention for many years.82 For instance Herbert Nicholas wrote in 1962:
The UN perfectly embodies in institutional form the tragic paradox of our age; it has become
indispensable before it has become effective.
Power politics – within and outside the organisation – is alive and well, and the entirely
predictable persistence of conflicts of interest and value among member states means that
the Council is, at one level, inescapably doomed to “ineffectiveness.” This is true, above all,
when the core or vital interests of states are seen to be at stake.83
Petrovsky claims that in addition to its formal role, the Security Council has
performed a number of other unacknowledged functions. He writes: “First, the UN
and its associated organs and agencies can always be relied upon to act as a
scapegoat for the vanities and follies of statesmen, and as “cheap and convenient
cover for the failure of their own policies.” Second, the Security Council serves as
77
Ibid. Also refer UN Charter at www.un.org.
Ibid.
79
Ibid, 54.
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid. Quoted from Mats Berdal “The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable” Survival Vol 45, #2, Summer 2003, p
7.
78
194
an instrument for collective legitimisation of state action. Third, it provides the
“Permanent Five States with a mechanism through which their separate and
distinctive interests can be more effectively advanced, concessions or quid pro quos
from other member states secured, and likely international criticism of what are in
fact unilateral policies or actions deflected.” 84 Petrovsky thus suggests if an
Interreligious Council were allowed to join the debates at the UN Security Council,
it could make this body less cynical, and more transparent and effective by
counterbalancing self-interest and power with a sense of morality.85
In order to further develop the position of civil society players at the UN a more
preemptive “hard” approach could be taken.86 This would mean a shift from civil
society’s current advisory position to a decision-making function. This would
ultimately require lobbying certain amendments to the UN Charter, giving at least
international NGOs the same (or nearly the same) status as representatives of
national governments.87 Petrovsky suggests a first step, a broader interpretation of
international subjects, as mentioned in Article 57 of the Charter, could be
introduced.88 For example, Article 57.1 could read:
The
various
specialized
agencies
and/or
other
organisations
established
by
intergovernmental agreement or otherwise, having wide international responsibilities, as
defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, religious, educational, health,
and related fields, shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations in accordance
with the provisions of Article 63.
Consequently, Article 63 of the Charter could establish a more regular mechanism
of interaction between governmental and non-governmental players within the UN
system, reading:
The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies
and/or organisations referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the agency and/or
organisation concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such
agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly.
If amended as mentioned, Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter would enable the
Interreligious Council and other international NGOs to join advisory and governing
boards of the UN specialised agencies, and to affect the decision-making process
related to their budgeting, programming etc.89
84
Ibid, 55.
Ibid.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid, 56.
89
Ibid.
85
195
Furthermore, the Interreligious Council could play a unique role of a model civil
society institution bringing together governmental and non-governmental actors, for
the purposes of the renewed United Nations, by integrating interreligious and
intercultural dimensions of their respective projects and programs.90 The Council
would also request international and regional organisations to strengthen their
support for the efforts of civil society to tackle the root causes of global problems
and to promote peace.91
The “soft” and “hard” approaches to the UN reformation could thus create the
opportunity for an Interreligious Council (whether a part of the UN or as an external
player), that would bring the UN closer to a model international organisation that
addresses the interests of all humanity and creating truly a United Nations.92 In
bringing together actors representing governments, religions, civil society, business
and academia, it would serve as a model of integrated governance. It would draw
on core spiritual and moral principles to provide solutions to climate change and to
other critical global problems. Its authority would depend on the personal standing,
status and actions of its members.
There have been numerous scholars who have voiced their support for an
Interreligious Council at the UN. For instance, Dr Juozas Satas, Professor, Kaunas
Technical University, Lithuania, stated:
The present structure of the United Nations is based on representation of states and their
political interests. Its activity is directed towards solving political and economic issues. Such
a basic factor of society as religion (morality) and structures that represent it are eliminated
from the UN structure and activity. Partly because of this, the organisation is in deep crisis,
unable to solve issues of international importance and perform the functions laid down in its
bylaws. The way out of this situation can be found in the proposal for establishing within its
framework an interreligious council made of representatives of the world’s major religions. It
is evident that the difficulties inherent in the UNs present structure could be removed more
easily if the moral and ethical teachings of the world’s major religions are heard and if their
representative hierarchies’ viewpoints are taken into consideration.
Dr Hans-Martin Jaeger, Associate Professor of Political Science at Carleton
University, Canada, stated:
A potential benefit of an interreligious council at the UN would be to broaden attention to
religion as a subject of and contribution to international cooperation. Attention to religion has
arguably been too narrowly focused, in the UN context. Religion has generally only been
considered in terms of the individual freedom of religion stipulated in the UN Charter and in
90
Ibid.
Ibid.
92
Ibid, 56-57.
91
196
UN Human Rights documents. What is perhaps needed is a greater recognition for the
concerns of religions as communities and understanding the right of a group or community.
Another way of thinking about the contribution of an interreligious council would be in terms
of collective security. Along with a number of other dimensions (military, economic,
ecological, etc.), collective security certainly also relates to “minds and hearts” of people.
Dr. Edvardas Rudy, Chief of Department, Institute of Agriculture, Lithuania,
declared:
There must be an opportunity at the United Nations for leaders of different religious groups
to work together. God is one. Although people from different nations and continents worship
Him in different ways, they pray for the same things: happiness, peace, health and
coexistence. There needs to be an institution at the United Nations where people from
different religious groups can find peaceful solutions to the world’s problems.
Dr. Leo Gabriel, a social anthropologist and journalist in Vienna, Austria; and
member of the International Council of the World Social Forum:
An interreligious council at the UN should recognise the diversity of currents not only among
the different religious institutions but also within these institutions. Representation should
centre on the diversity of people. The decision-making process should reflect the wisdom of
indigenous peoples, for whom consensus is more important than majority rule.
7.4. Obstacles to the proposal for a religious/civil society
organisation at the UN
The notion of ‘separation of church and state’ (as discussed in chapter 5) is one of
the major obstacles presently standing in the way of full religious participation within
the international arena. Even so, this may not be a permanent obstacle as
secularisation theory has been largely dispelled and religious organisations are
gradually gaining a place within the public realm, particularly in the areas of the
environment, humanitarian affairs, and development. The greatest obstacle is
perhaps the United Nations itself. As an intergovernmental organisation, member
States are highly protective of their prominence within it. Although the debates are
ongoing, the foremost priority for the UN is to retain its intergovernmental structure.
However, the major bodies of the UN, and the UN Security Council are presently
failing to find a mechanism strong enough to stand up to the most critical problems
of today, particularly global security. For example, the UN itself is not able to carry
out many of the Declarations and Resolutions it produces based on its own
principles because of the political composition of the Security Council. Besides the
five permanent members - China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and the
197
United States of America (the victorious powers of the Second World War), the
UNSC also has ten non-permanent members which are elected on a rotating basis
and through the vote of the members of the General Assembly. 93 According to
Article 27 of the UN Charter, a draft resolution on non-procedural matters is adopted
if nine or more of the fifteen members of the UNSC vote for the resolution, provided
that none of the permanent members veto it. 94 If one of the ‘Big 5’ veto it, its
adoption will be precluded.95 This has been seen to be a discriminatory and biased
privilege given to the five permanent members to dictate their own will as they
wish.96 Small and weak states have no comparable leverage. Although there have
been attempts to put forward alternatives to the right of veto, the UNSC has shown
very little flexibility with regards to reformation of its structure. 97 It has instead
become an instrument for the five superpowers to further their political will in the
arena of international politics and to alter it according to their own interests. 98 This
is apparent in the current Middle Eastern conflicts. The US is helping one side, while
Russia is supporting the other in a bid to balance powers.99 For example, within the
Syrian conflict, the US is supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia for their influence on
the outcome of the war in Syria. 100 Through its indirect support of the Syrian Free
Army, the US not only seeks to destroy the regime of Bashar al-Assad, but also to
get Russia out of Syria altogether.101 By doing so, Russia will lose its foothold in the
region. The most important difference between the politics and strategies of Russia
and the US are their geographical interests. 102 Both seek to expand their own
regional influence while diminishing that of the other.103 The conflict in the Ukraine
is yet another area of confrontation between Russia and the US.104 While Russia
supports the separatist movements with weapons and fighters, American Special
Forces are advising the Ukrainian army in their engagement against the
separatists.105 The US has an interest in the membership of Ukraine in NATO and
the EU, but Russia cannot accept such a possibility and is therefore destabilising
the country.106
Thomas Weiss further suggests that the United States, global in reach and
power, has actually become a second “world organisation” standing alongside the
93
United Nations Security Council website. Found online at http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/.
Charter of the United Nations, Chapter V: The Security Council, Voting, Article 27.
95
Ibid.
96
Diana Diaz “The Security Council at an Impasse” Global Politics. Found online at http://www.globalpolitics.co.uk/Archive/Security%20Council%20Impasse.htm.
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid.
99
Dr Albert Alexander Stahel “The Geopolitical situation of Europe” in Global Gold Outlook No. 7, September 2014.
100
Ibid.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
94
198
UN.107 Its military, economic, and cultural predominance has no precedent, even
with the rise of China and India. 108 As one of the main factors influencing US
attitudes to the world, American exceptionalism is extremely difficult to reconcile with
the changing dynamics of geopolitics. 109 Exceptionalism implies that of all sociopolitical systems, the US has created the best system of governance – one that
focuses on the protection of the civilian and places the individual, his freedoms,
rights, and interests at its heart.110 Exceptionalism does not allow for dialogue on
equal terms or for the US to become simply one centre of power among many.111
Weiss states that too often experts overlook how the UN system serves American
interests and gives the US cause to proceed with international agreement. 112 Against
this setting, Ted Sorensen, a former speechwriter for President F Kennedy asks:
“What is more unrealistic than to believe that this country can unilaterally decide the
fate of others, without a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, or for the
judgment of world institutions and our traditional allies?”
The events following 11 September 2001 are a case in point in terms of American
selective engagement, when the US learned that the UNSC could be one of the best
avenues through which to address its crisis of security. 113 However, its preferred
resolutions were not always supported by all members of the Council and when
confronted by opposition it aborted multilateral bargaining, utilising instead its
unilateral power.114 With this attitude America explicitly showed that ‘acting through
the Security Council is always a policy option but should not be a road that
Washington always takes’, especially when Council resolutions are related to
American interests and concerns of national security. 115 The power and hegemonic
position the US commands has meant that Washington has been able to choose
between unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral strategies and also able to select the
institutions which suits its interests the most.116
Although Barack Obama’s election in 2009 signaled a revitalised US commitment
to multilateralism, unilateral tendencies still endure from the former Bush
administration. 117 Thus American exceptionalism remains an ongoing issue –
predominantly in the realm of international peace and security. 118 Before the war in
107
Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012).
Ibid.
109
Dmitry Suslov “Can American exceptionalism adjust to a multipolar world? Russia Direct. Found online at http://www.russiadirect.org/opinion/can-american-exceptionalism-adjust-multipolar-world.
110
Ibid.
111
Ibid.
112
Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012).
113
Diana Diaz “The Security Council at an Impasse” Global Politics. Found online at http://www.globalpolitics.co.uk/Archive/Security%20Council%20Impasse.htm.
114
Ibid.
115
Ibid.
116
Ibid.
117
Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012).
118
Ibid.
108
199
Iraq, for example, the US was already spending more on its military than the next
15-25 countries, and its spending is now about seven times that of China.119 UN-led
or UN-approved operations with considerable military requirements proceed only
when Washington approves or agrees.120 The US sheer might and willingness to
resort to unilateralism dominates every level of UN affairs – normative, legal, and
operational.121 It also has a drastic effect. The current Iraq crisis has, for example,
first and foremost shown the US Middle East policy has failed miserably and the US
has achieved the very thing that it supposedly went to Iraq to prevent in the context
of the War on Terror.122 The US destroyed Iraq’s political, social, and institutional
infrastructure, eventually rendering it a puppet-state of Iran under a government that
has further polarised the Iraqi society and led it into more conflict. 123
In spite of the many calls for reform, the state-centric world organisation
continues to stumble along as it has since its inception in 1945. 124 In spite of
decolonisation processes and a massive membership expansion, along with
fundamental geopolitical and other changes, the UNs basic structure and
institutional make-up has remained fundamentally the same. 125 Similarly, the
assorted divisions of the UN organisation, and the numerous bodies of the broader
system, have evolved, but have not undergone the level of changes which the world
urgently requires.126 Mark Malloch Brown, former UN deputy secretary-general, has
stated that for this to occur, member States “would have to rise above their own
current sense of entrenched rights and privileges and find a grand bargain to allow
a new more realistic governance model for the UN.” 127 Until this occurs, the Security
Council and the wider UN bodies will continue to act on political realities rather than
on legal, never mind moral, norms. This is perhaps the gravest difficulty faced by
those committed to finding a remedy for climate change. Although the nature of
collective problems such as environmental degradation urgently requires humanity
to create a more robust intergovernmental institution with a much wider scope than
is presently available, States are steadfastly unwilling to relinquish their authority.
Although States remain essential for national, regional, and global problem-solving,
they cannot address transnational issues sufficiently in their current form and
Ibid. Washington spends more (approximately $670 billion) than the rest of the world’s militaries combined. With regards to
softer power – economic might and cultural influence – the United States will remain a major player on the world stage for the
foreseeable future.
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid.
122
Zenonas Tziarras “The Iraq Crisis and Its Geopolitical Implications” E-International Relations. Found online at http://www.eir.info/2014/07/29/the-iraq-crisis-and-its-geopolitical-implications/.
123
Ibid.
124
Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012).
125
Ibid.
126
Ibid.
127
Ibid.
119
200
therefore must learn to embrace new models of global cooperation within the UN
such as the proposal this thesis presents.
In October 2004, the UN General Assembly took up agenda item 54, on
strengthening the United Nations system under which Member States spoke on UNcivil society relations.128 The report of Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society
Relations (the Cardoso Report) and the Secretary-General’s report in response to
the Panel’s recommendations were discussed. Although numerous Member States
recognised the contribution made over the years by civil society organisations and
expressed an interest in enhancing civil society participation in the UNs work, it was
recommended that a cautious approach be taken in reforming current UN practices
so that the UN retains its intergovernmental nature.129
During the meeting, UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette observed
that where once global conferences were largely the realm of governments, today,
staging such events would be unthinkable without the unique advocacy and
mobilization of civil society. 130 As has been evidenced in earlier chapters of this
thesis, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are making increasingly important
contributions to global policy debates and intergovernmental deliberations in areas
ranging from the environment to gender mainstreaming. Although Member States
explicitly stated the United Nations would remain an intergovernmental organization
where decisions are taken exclusively by its Member States, two important
proposals arose from the reports. First, the United Nations must become more
outward-looking, expanding its global reach and impact. 131 Second, the United
Nations needed to do more to “connect the global with the local,” so that people felt
that their agenda was the UNs agenda.132
Member States presented their views on the reports and recommendations. The
following represents a selection of those views. Ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg
of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated
States, emphasized that the UN had to adapt to changing conditions by undertaking
reform to make the Organisation stronger.133 He stated the European Union favored
innovative forms of interaction with civil society, including hearings before major
policy-setting events.134 He suggested looking into the possibility of allowing NGOs
to take part in certain Assembly debates.135 Ambassador John Dauth of Australia,
“United Nations General Assembly Debate” UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service website at http://www.unngls.org/orf/UNreform.htm.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid.
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid.
133
Ibid.
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid.
128
201
speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said enhancing participation of
NGOs would ensure better outreach and better implementation of the
Organization’s
initiatives
on
the
ground,
including
humanitarian assistance and peace and security activities.
development
136
efforts,
Ambassador Ronaldo
Sardenberg of Brazil, said the Rio Group would participate in discussions on UNcivil society relations as long as the focus was upon promoting integration of civil
society in a way that strengthened the work of the Organization. 137 Ambassador
Peter Maurer of Switzerland stressed relations with civil society should not be
restricted by bureaucratic and centralizing approaches.138 He also stated that room
for maneuver of specialized organizations, funds and programmes should be
preserved, while maintaining positive existing practices.139 Ambassador Dumisani
S. Kumalo of South Africa said his country placed a very high premium on the
contribution that civil society could and had made in analyzing, evaluating and
shaping debates at the UN. 140 Accordingly, he argued it was important for the
Organization to enhance its cooperation with civil society in order for Member States
to draw on the best and most up-to-date information on which to base their
discussion.141 Ambassador Zhang Yishan of China recognized the importance of
considering the participation of civil society in the work of the United Nations along
with other reform issues. He recommended that Member States should look back
at the contributions such groups had made to the United Nations over the past 60
years to map out the way forward.142
Although Ambassador Sichan Siv of the United States recognized that NGOs
provided valuable input to the work of the United Nations, he did not believe that a
compelling argument had been made to broaden the relationship beyond the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).143 ECOSOC, he said, continued to be the
appropriate venue for meaningful NGO participation, and NGOs had ample
opportunities to participate in ECOSOC and United Nations conferences.
144
Ambassador Anand Sharma of India asserted that a convincing case had not been
made for opening the regular work of the Assembly to increased participation by
accredited NGOs, and that the nature of the participation and the benefits to be
derived from that were not apparent.145 He also stated that NGOs were unable to
satisfy
the
intergovernmental principle
136
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
139
Ibid.
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
144
Ibid.
145
Ibid.
137
138
202
and
the
principle
of democratic
representation so important to the General Assembly because they were not, in the
strict meaning of the term, elected.146 Article 71 of the Charter determined that the
principal relationship between the United Nations and civil society would be through
the Economic and Social Council, and India would be hesitant to tamper with the
Charter.147 Ambassador Danesh-Yazdi of Iran echoed India’s concerns.148
The views of Member States make clear statements regarding the
intergovernmental nature of the UN. However, they also make clear statements
regarding the hugely beneficial nature of civil society at the UN. Rapidly increasing
knowledge of the harm climate change is causing to the planet combined with the
ineffective responses of intergovernmental agencies is leading to more radical
reform options such as the one this thesis proposes.
7.5.
Conclusion
This chapter has sought to illustrate how a religious organisation might be
established at the UN level in order to improve the effective implementation of
international environmental agreements. It also illustrated the obstacles which make
establishment difficult, particularly the obstinacy of Member States to retain the UNs
intergovernmental nature.
The creativity, flexibility, and capacity for vision and long-term thinking often sets
religious organisations apart from governmental bodies. A revitalized and more
ethically-based global environmental governance regime would thus benefit from
greater participation of religious NGOs (and other members of civil society) in global
policy processes. Although only limited progress has been made in this regard to
date, it is hoped that with an ever increasing role played by religious organisations
in environmental concerns, along with an increase of public participation in diverse
forums, pressure may be exerted to reflect such interests institutionally. The latest
UN Climate Conference in Warsaw, in 2013, has illustrated the omnipresent
wavering stance of governments and international institutions to reach global
consensus on environmental issues. The United Nations must forge new alliances
with civil society if just solutions to global concerns are to be reached.
146
Ibid.
Ibid.
148
Ibid.
147
203
204
Thesis Summary
8.1. Introduction
To conclude my dissertation I will briefly discuss the contributions my research
makes to scholarship concerning the engagement of religion and its interface
between ethics, policy and law within the climate change arena. I will recap my
research objectives and the argument developed throughout the thesis along with
the research outcomes. I will then consider recommendations for further research
before concluding the dissertation.
8.2. Contribution of my research
The primary objective of this thesis was to consider how religious voice could
improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change regime and how
this could be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms. I began my research
with the assumption that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to solve global climate
change problems without employing an ethical dimension to work alongside the
economic, technological, and scientific components. Although the importance of an
ethical dimension to climate change governance has drawn extensive attention from
academia and policymakers in recent years, scholars have struggled to locate a
tangible reform option that deals adequately with ethics. I have posited that religion
could improve the quality of decision-making through the development of a religious
organisation within the United Nations system ultimately responsible for employing
ethical guidelines in policymaking.
First, I highlighted the importance of religion for the climate change arena as a
source of political morality, a topic that has been largely neglected by mainstream
environmental law scholarship. Although Posas discussed the importance of
religion to climate change in her award-winning essay “Roles of Religion and Ethics
in Addressing Climate Change,” she did not go so far as discussing particular roles
for religious organisations within the international arena. 1 Second, I examined
secularisation theories which suggest that religion does not belong in the public
sphere. Daniel Philpott and Jeffrey Hadden wrote extensively on secularisation
theories and the concepts of the secular, concluding that religion has not
disappeared from the public sphere as predicted. 2 Fox states, ironically, the
Paula J Posas “Roles of Religion and Ethics in Addressing Climate Change” ESEP 2007: 31-49.
Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 185; Jeffrey K Hadden “Toward
Desacralizing Secularization Theory” (1987b) Social Forces, 65(3) 597.
1
2
205
reassessment of the role of religion in society has resulted in an argument that is
nearly exactly opposite to the argument made by modernisation and secularisation
theory: modernisation, rather than causing religion’s demise, is responsible for its
resurgence.3 Third, I suggested ways in which religious voice could be implemented
within the international arena, either under the umbrella of the UNFCCC, or
alternatively, as a United Nations organisation. By illustrating the potential role of
religion within the international regime, this study provides a new lens through which
we can understand and improve upon the climate change regime.
8.3. Research objectives and research outcomes
In section 1.3 I presented the following research objectives, to determine:

The importance of religion for combating climate change;

How religious voice could improve the quality of decision-making within the climate
change regime and how this could be achieved in practical (legal, institutional)
terms.
Drawing from my research findings I explain the outcomes of my research in light of
each of these objectives. I commence with the secondary research question, as the
response to this question is a precursor to the primary research question.
How is religion important for combating climate change?
Systematic neglect of a religious contribution has blinded policymakers to the
importance of religious voice in the international arena. The reasons for neglect are
generally attributed to a strong secular bias that has prevailed in leading academic
institutions. It has been widely assumed that, first, religion belongs in the private
sphere, and second, that with the modernisation of societies, religion as a major
factor in global politics has diminished in importance. My thesis has argued that the
presumptions are erroneous. It has challenged those dominant theories by positing
that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere. It has instead become
increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and contains a veritable
wealth of knowledge.
In order to ascertain the importance of religion for combating climate change, it
was imperative to initially assess the differing perspectives of the world’s religions
on the issue. Research revealed that the world’s major religions are proactive in
climate change initiatives (to differing degrees both within and between faith groups)
and these initiatives are progressively increasing in volume. Perhaps this increase
3
Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 11-12.
206
in volume could be understood as a natural progression of religions toward a more
enlightened position. Watling and Tucker and Grim have written extensively on this
subject and consider this to be currently occurring.
With an understanding that religions are focused on facilitating successful
outcomes, the next question focused on religion’s importance for combating climate
change. Reasoning lies in such matters as the sheer number of adherents, unity of
purpose amongst religions, sustainability practices that are undertaken by religious
groups, notions of justice, reverence for nature and the high moral authority held by
religious leaders.
Possessing such a large global membership, religion has the potential to create
a considerable impact in the global effort to curb climate change. 4 Gary Gardner
states that degrees of adherence among the billions of religious people vary greatly,
as does the readiness of adherents to translate their faith into political action or
lifestyle choices. 5 And many believers within the same religion, he says, may
interpret their faith in conflicting ways, leading them to act at cross-purposes.6 Even
so, the sheer numbers are so large that mobilising even a fraction of adherents to
the cause of building a just and environmentally healthy society could advance the
sustainability agenda dramatically. It is this common purpose which helps to explain
how religions from widely different global regions and with widely divergent beliefs
and theologies can work together on climate justice. Christopher Weeramantry has
stated, “Whereas organised religions once tended to shut out perspectives of the
wisdom of other religions, today’s multicultural world has opened up a dialogue
between the religions whereby they reach out to each other to discuss the core
values they teach in common.”7
Over the past several decades, engagement on environmental sustainability
matters by religions and spiritual traditions has grown. Many religions are becoming
increasingly aware of their potential for environmental good, and many are taking
action to introduce sustainable practices.
The notion of justice is of most importance for religious action for the
environment. Climate justice implies just and fair instruments, decisions, actions,
sharing of the burden and accountability in order to prevent, mitigate and adapt to
4
Although data are estimates, roughly 85 per cent of people on the planet belong to one of 10,000 or so religions, and 150 or so
of these faith traditions have at least a million followers each. Adherents of the three largest traditions – Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism – account for about two-thirds of the global population today. Another 20 per cent of the world’s people subscribe to
the remaining religions, and about 16 per cent are non-religious. This information is based on the following: Adherents,
www.adherents.com/Religions_by_Adherents.html; population data from US Census Bureau, International Data Base,
www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html.
5
Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York,
2006) 49.
6
Ibid.
7
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009) 11.
207
climate change. The notion of justice from within a religious perspective derives
from a sense of responsibility to care for Creation. And for some religious groups,
justice is at the heart of their environmental concerns.
As has been evidenced throughout the thesis, religious leaders have begun to
play key leadership roles on the environmental stage. Roger Gottlieb has suggested
that it is one of the great accomplishments of the world’s religious leaders that
ecological responsibility has become a key topic of discussion.8 For example, in a
statement in 1997, Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and
Ecumenical Patriarch stated:9
To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin ... to cause species to become extinct
and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation ... to degrade the integrity of the
Earth by causing changes in its climate, stripping the Earth of its natural forests, or
destroying its wetlands ... to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life with
poisonous substances – these are sins.
The fact that Bartholomew’s powerful theological language directly contradicts any
presupposition that the environmental crisis is merely a technical problem or a
flawed policy is important. His assertion that environmental degradation is a sin puts
human relation to nature in the category of religious morality and, as such, is a direct
expansion of both religion and environmental concern.10
Can religious voice improve the quality of decision-making within the
climate change regime and if so, how can this be achieved in practical
(legal, institutional) terms?
This question stood as the primary research objective of my thesis. As previously
discussed, ethical considerations are imperative to configuring a climate change
response strategy that will prevent a catastrophic outcome. I thus proposed that
religion has the potential to fill the ethical and/or moral gap in policy formation by
utilising its moral attributes and shared environmental values. Religion has the
capacity to greatly strengthen the basic principles of international law by providing
a universal appeal and a vast range of reinforcing concepts and arguments. Based
on this conjecture, religion could improve the quality of climate change decisionmaking by developing into an ethical “voice” for policy discourse. Undeniably, this
does not come without its own set of challenges. For instance, many would decry
religion as an ‘ethical’ body that could decide the nature of ethical issues and how
Roger S Gottlieb “Religion and the Environment” in John Hinnells (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion 2nd ed
(Routledge, London, 2010) pp 492-508.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid 497.
8
208
to resolve them. Ethical issues in any debate, whether individual or collective in
essence, are hugely subjective and any discussion on how to establish ethical
guidelines will remain a contentious topic. Nevertheless, an ethical dimension
requires deliberation, and religion, with its billions of adherents, is worthy of
consideration.
After reflection on the capacity of religion to improve the quality of climate change
decision-making, I proposed several options for the establishment of a religious
body within the international arena. Creation of a religious body would offer an
ethical voice whereby the United Nations could be guided by universal spiritual and
moral principles in addition to state interests. The organisation could become a
critical agent of change within the international regime, both in terms of philosophy
and practical framework. The first option placed the organisation within the current
UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a
Secretariat administered through the COP. Climate change issues would
accordingly remain the organisation’s central focus. The second option placed a
religious organisation directly within the United Nations system either as a traditional
NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General
Assembly or the Security Council.
Undoubtedly, these recommendations will evoke many critics, particularly those
scholars and policymakers who believe that religion has no place in the public
sphere and that the UN should retain its status as an intergovernmental
organisation. Nevertheless, climate change has become a very serious issue with
extremely serious consequences and ethical considerations must constitute an
equal part of the solution-making process. Religion, with an immense wealth of
environmental wisdom and a willingness to unite for global environmental concerns,
has the capacity to bring these ethical considerations prominently into the
international arena.
8.4. Recommendations for future research
Several recommendations for future investigation arise from my research. First, I
suggest a feasibility study that would examine the possibility of religious and civil
society environmental organisations working together as a unified organisation with
the aim of providing an ethical/moral perspective for global concerns. Interactions
between religious groups globally have increased in recent years, with numerous
international meetings, national networks of interreligious activism, religiously
sponsored environmental advocacy and education programs, collaborations
between religious and environmental groups, and grassroots religious and
209
environmental advocacy flourishing. The increased activity and commitment
represented by the initiatives suggests that environmentalism is not just a passing
interest for religious groups and unified action is a possibility. Second, I suggest
further research encompassing the views of UN Member States regarding the
possibility of increased involvement by civil society actors (including religious
organisations) for climate change governance. An ethical perspective is urgently
required but presently largely neglected.
8.5. Conclusion
At the commencement of this thesis I positioned climate change as a complex issue
which presents as not only potentially the greatest challenge to humankind but the
greatest ethical challenge. At the core of climate change concerns are deeply ethical
considerations such as fairness, justice, and equity, all of which I have touched on
in this thesis. The current international environmental regime is failing to provide
effective solutions to ongoing and worsening global environmental issues (as
summarised in chapter 2). The latest climate talks indicate that nation states are still
unable to make the shift away from self-interested options, characterized
internationally by competitive and conflictual expressions of power among
sovereign states. These notable shortcomings argue strongly for a transformation
of the international environmental regime where a more unified vision of the needs
of the world and of governance for mutual benefit is urgently required. This thesis
has argued that ethics must be at the heart of any new framework (chapter 3). It has
also suggested that religion has the capacity to carry ethical values more
prominently into the international climate change system (chapter 4). Secularisation
theory and the assumption held by many that religion does not belong in the public
sphere is slowly dissipating, paving the way for active collaboration and cooperation
between secular and religious institutions (chapter 5). On the strength of these
findings, the thesis proposed there is a place within the UN system for religion to
reside and suggested machinery by which to achieve collaborative status in future
climate change policymaking and law (chapters 6 and 7). A religious organisation
at the UN could ultimately become the leading moral authority in all matters
concerning the ethical implications of climate change. Although achieving the
objectives of this proposal may not yet appear viable, continued dialogue and
research in this area will assist in its development.
210
The final word should accordingly be left to Christopher Weeramantry who has
so aptly stated:11
“It matters not whether we are atheists or believers in God. It matters little whether
we are followers of this religion or that. What is important is that despite this
cornucopia of wisdom being available to us; it is lying unrecognized and unused.
Let us delve into its richness and strengthen from its resources the basic principles
which are needed for protection of the environment and of future generations.”
11
C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri
Lanka, 2009)17.
211
212
APPENDICES
213
214
APPENDIX A: The Evangelical Climate Initiative
Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action1
PREAMBLE
As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our
responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in
the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire
world.2 Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an
open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw.
We are proud of the evangelical community’s long-standing commitment to the sanctity of
human life. But we also offer moral witness in many venues and on many issues.
Sometimes the issues that we have taken on, such as sex trafficking, genocide in the
Sudan, and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, have surprised outside observers. While
individuals and organisations can be called to concentrate on certain issues, we are not a
single-issue movement. We seek to be true to our calling as Christian leaders, and above
all faithful to Jesus Christ our Lord. Our attention, therefore, goes to whatever issues our
faith requires us to address. Over the last several years many of us have engaged in
study, reflection, and prayer related to the issue of climate change (often called “global
warming”). For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or
major priority. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming
persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as
Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough to offer the following moral argument
related to the matter of human-induced climate change. We commend the four simple but
urgent claims offered in this document to all who will listen, beginning with our brothers
and sisters in the Christian community, and urge all to take the appropriate actions that
follow from them.
Claim 1: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real
Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community
most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being
caused mainly by human activities,
especially the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence gathered since 1995 has only strengthened
this conclusion.
Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate
change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data. As
evangelicals we have hesitated to speak on this issue until we could be more certain of the
science of climate change, but the signatories now believe that the evidence demands
action:
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative
body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying
this issue since the late 1980s.(From 1988-2002 the IPCC’s assessment of the climate
science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian.) It has
documented the steady rise in global temperatures over the last fifty years, projects that
1
The Evangelical Climate Initiative at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/.
Cf. “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” approved by National Association of Evangelicals,
October 8, 2004
2
215
the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes
“most of the warming” to human activities.
• The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, as well as all other G8 country scientific
Academies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia), has
concurred with these judgments.
• In a 2004 report, and at the 2005 G8 summit, the Bush Administration has also
acknowledged the reality of climate change and the likelihood that human activity is the
cause of at least some of it.3
In the face of the breadth and depth of this scientific and governmental concern, only a
small percentage of which is noted here, we are convinced that evangelicals must engage
this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity’s
responsibility to address it.
Claim 2: The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor
the Hardest
The earth’s natural systems are resilient but not infinitely so, and human civilisations are
remarkably dependent on ecological stability and well-being. It is easy to forget this until
that stability and well-being are threatened.
Even small rises in global temperatures will have such likely impacts as: sea level rise;
more frequent heat waves, droughts, and extreme weather events such as torrential rains
and floods; increased tropical diseases in now-temperate regions; and hurricanes that are
more intense. It could lead to significant reduction in agricultural output, especially in poor
countries. Low-lying regions, indeed entire islands, could find themselves under water.
(This is not to mention the various negative impacts climate change could have on God’s
other creatures.)
Each of these impacts increases the likelihood of refugees from flooding or famine, violent
conflicts, and
international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation.
Poor nations and poor individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major
challenges and threats. The consequences of global warming will therefore hit the poor the
hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected first are in the
poorest regions of the world. Millions of people could die in this century because of climate
change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.
Claim 3: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change
Problem
3
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, Summary for Policymakers;
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. (See also the main IPCC website, www.ipcc.ch.) For the confirmation of the
IPCC’s findings from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, see, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key
Questions (2001); http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html. For the statement by the G8 Academies (plus those
of Brazil, India, and China) see Joint Science Academies Statement: Global Response to Climate Change, (June 2005):
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. Another major international report that confirms the IPCC’s conclusions comes
from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. See their Impacts of a Warming Climate, Cambridge University Press, November
2004, p.2; http://amap.no/acia/. Another important statement is from the American Geophysical Union, “Human Impacts on
Climate,” December 2003, http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html. For the Bush Administration’s
perspective, see Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, p.47;
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm. For the 2005 G8 statement, see http://www.number
10.gov.uk/output/Page7881.asp.
216
While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of
the creation,
we emphasize the following points:
• Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus
our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God’s world, and
any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24;
Col. 1:16).
• Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors,
to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least
of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).
• Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are
reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship
over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to
exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen.
1:26-28).
Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough
reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral
passion and concrete action.
Claim 4: The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and
individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change -- starting now.
The basic task for all of the world’s inhabitants is to find ways now to begin to reduce the
carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that are the primary cause of
human-induced climate change.
There are several reasons for urgency. First, deadly impacts are being experienced now.
Second, the oceans only warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences.
Much of the climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for
several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create now will be visited upon our
children and grandchildren. Third, as individuals and as a society we are making long-term
decisions today that will determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future,
such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 1020 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather
than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal
level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms
such as a cap-and-trade program. On June 22, 2005 the Senate passed the DomeniciBingaman resolution affirming this approach, and a number of major energy companies
now acknowledge that this method is best both for the environment and for business.
We commend the Senators who have taken this stand and encourage them to fulfill their
pledge. We also applaud the steps taken by such companies as BP, Shell, General
Electric, Cinergy, Duke Energy, and DuPont, all of which have moved ahead of the pace of
government action through innovative measures implemented within their companies in
the U.S. and around the world. In so doing they have offered timely leadership.
Numerous positive actions to prevent and mitigate climate change are being implemented
across our society by state and local governments, churches, smaller businesses, and
217
individuals. These commendable efforts focus on such matters as energy efficiency, the
use of renewable energy, low CO2 emitting technologies, and the purchase of hybrid
vehicles. These efforts can easily be shown to save money, save energy, reduce global
warming pollution as well as air pollution that harm human health, and eventually pay for
themselves. There is much more to be done, but these pioneers are already helping to
show the way forward.
Finally, while we must reduce our global warming pollution to help mitigate the impacts of
climate change, as a society and as individuals we must also help the poor adapt to the
significant harm that global warming will cause.
Conclusion
We the undersigned pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We
will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek ways to implement the
actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read
this declaration to join us in this effort.
218
APPENDIX B: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity4
Warning issued November 18, 1992
Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in
the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The Warning was written and
spearheaded by UCS Chair Henry Kendall.
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict
harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not
checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for
human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it
will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent
if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
The Environment
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the
earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near
ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans,
forests and crops.
Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and
other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have
resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's
population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply.
Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which
produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the
estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of
collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial,
municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.
Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive Land abandonment, is a widespread
byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the
earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China
combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.
Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed
rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of
the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go
large numbers of plant and animal species.
Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now
living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal
and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the
robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth
itself.
Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes
appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from
human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from
The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” at
http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/union/.
4
219
deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still
uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential
risks are very great.
Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the
environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could
trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological
systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.
Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing
the threat.
Population
The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to
provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is
finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices
which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot
be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.
Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world
that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the
destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank
estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion; while the
United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of
today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty
without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.
No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now
confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
WARNING
We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all
humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on
it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is
not to be irretrievably mutilated.
What We Must Do
Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:
1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the
integrity of the earth's systems we depend on. We must, for example, move away from
fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions
and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy
sources matched to third world needs -- small scale and relatively easy to implement. We
must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and
marine plant and animal species.
2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively. We must give high
priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of
conservation and recycling.
3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it
requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary
family planning.
4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own
reproductive decisions.
220
The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly
reduce their over-consumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global
environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to
developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and
the technical skills for these tasks.
Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether
industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when
global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over
increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will
cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped
nations alike.
Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats
they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go
unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline,
poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.
Success in this global endeavour will require a great reduction in violence and war.
Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1
trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new
challenges.
A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring
for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide
for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic
must motivate a great movement; convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments
and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.
The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people
everywhere. We need the help of many.
We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic,
political;
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;
We require the help of the world’s religious leaders; and
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.
221
APPENDIX C: Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration
Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration 5
Parliament of the World’s Religions
4 September 1993, Chicago, U.S.A.
Introduction
The text entitled ‘Introduction’ was produced by an Editorial Committee of the ‘Council’ of the
Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago on the basis of the Declaration itself composed in
Tubingen (here headed ‘Principles’). It was meant to serve as a brief summary of the Declaration for
publicity purposes.
The world is in agony.
The agony is so pervasive and urgent that we are compelled to name its
manifestations so that the depth of this pain may be made clear.
Peace eludes us ... the planet is being destroyed ... neighbors live in fear ...
women and men are estranged from each other ... children die!
This is abhorrent!
We condemn the abuses of Earth's ecosystems.
We condemn the poverty that stifles life's potential; the hunger that weakens
the human body; the economic disparities that threaten so many families with
ruin.
We condemn the social disarray of the nations; the disregard for justice which
pushes citizens to the margin; the anarchy overtaking our communities; and
the insane death of children from violence. In particular we condemn
aggression and hatred in the name of religion.
But this agony need not be.
It need not be because the basis for an ethic already exists. This ethic offers
the possibility of a better individual and global order, and leads individuals
away from despair and societies away from chaos.
We are women and men who have embraced the precepts and practices of the
world's religions:
5
Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration at
http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf.
222
We affirm that a common set of core values is found in the teachings of the
religions, and that these form the basis of a global ethic.
We affirm that this truth is already known, but yet to be lived in heart and
action.
We affirm that there is an irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life,
for families and communities, for races, nations, and religions. There already
exist ancient guidelines
for human behavior which are found in the teachings of the religions of the
world and which are the condition for a sustainable world order.
We Declare:
We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole,
and so we have respect for the community of living beings, for people, animals,
and plants, and for the preservation of Earth, the air, water and soil.
We take individual responsibility for all we do. All our decisions, actions, and
failures to act have consequences.
We must treat others as we wish others to treat us. We make a commitment to
respect life and dignity, individuality and diversity, so that every person is
treated humanely, without exception. We must have patience and acceptance.
We must be able to forgive, learning from the past but never allowing ourselves
to be enslaved by memories of hate. Opening our hearts to one another, we
must sink our narrow differences for the cause of the world community,
practicing a culture of solidarity and relatedness.
We consider humankind our family. We must strive to be kind and generous.
We must not live for ourselves alone, but should also serve others, never
forgetting the children, the aged, the poor, the suffering, the disabled, the
refugees, and the lonely. No person should ever be considered or treated as a
second-class citizen, or be exploited in any way whatsoever. There should be
equal partnership between men and women. We must not commit any kind of
sexual immorality. We must put behind us all forms of domination or abuse.
We commit ourselves to a culture of non-violence, respect, justice, and peace.
We shall not oppress, injure, torture, or kill other human beings, forsaking
violence as a means of settling differences.
We must strive for a just social and economic order, in which everyone has an
equal chance to reach full potential as a human being. We must speak and act
truthfully and with compassion, dealing fairly with all, and avoiding prejudice
and hatred. We must not steal. We must move beyond the dominance of greed
for power, prestige, money, and consumption to make a just and peaceful
world.
Earth cannot be changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals
is changed first. We pledge to increase our awareness by disciplining our
minds, by meditation, by prayer, or by positive thinking. Without risk and a
readiness to sacrifice there can be no fundamental change in our situation.
Therefore we commit ourselves to this global ethic, to understanding one
another, and to socially beneficial, peace-fostering, and nature-friendly ways of
life.
We invite all people, whether religious or not, to do the same.
223
THE PRINCIPLES OF A GLOBAL ETHIC
Our world is experiencing a fundamental crisis: a crisis in global economy,
global ecology, and global politics. The lack of a grand vision, the tangle of
unresolved problems, political paralysis, mediocre political leadership with little
insight or foresight, and in general too little sense for the commonweal are
seen everywhere: too many old answers to new challenges.
Hundreds of millions of human beings on our planet increasingly suffer from
unemployment, poverty, hunger, and the destruction of their families. Hope for
a lasting peace among nations slips away from us. There are tensions between
the sexes and generations. Children die, kill, and are killed. More and more
countries are shaken by corruption in politics and business. It is increasingly
difficult to live together peacefully in our cities because of social, racial, and
ethnic conflicts, the abuse of drugs, organized crime, and even anarchy. Even
neighbors often live in fear of one another. Our planet continues to be
ruthlessly plundered. A collapse of the ecosystem threatens us.
Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression,
fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia -- even inspire and legitimize violent and
bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for purely power-political goals,
including war. We are filled with disgust.
We condemn these blights and declare that they need not be. An ethic already
exists within the religious teachings of the world which can counter the global
distress. Of course this ethic provides no direct solution for all the immense
problems of the world, but it does supply the moral foundation for a better
individual and global order: a vision which can lead women and men away
from despair and society away from chaos.
We are persons who have committed ourselves to the precepts and practices
of the world's religions. We confirm that there is already a consensus among
the religions which can be the basis for a global ethic -- a minimal
"fundamental consensus" concerning binding "values," irrevocable "standards,"
and fundamental" moral attitudes."
I. No new global order without a new global ethic!
We women and men of various religions and regions of Earth therefore
address all people, religious and non-religious. We wish to express the
following convictions which we hold in
common:
* We all have a responsibility for a better global order.
* Our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice, peace, and
the preservation of Earth is absolutely necessary.
* Our different religious and cultural traditions must not prevent our common
involvement in opposing all forms of inhumanity and working for greater
humaneness.
* The principles expressed in this global ethic can be affirmed by all persons
with ethical convictions, whether religiously grounded or not.
* As religious and spiritual persons we base our lives on an Ultimate Reality,
and draw spiritual power and hope therefrom, in trust, in prayer or meditation,
in word or silence. We have a special responsibility for the welfare of all
humanity and care for the planet Earth. We do not consider ourselves better
than other women and men, but we trust that the ancient wisdom of our
religions can point the way for the future.
224
After two world wars and the end of the cold war, the collapse of fascism and
nazism, the shaking to the foundations of communism and colonialism,
humanity has entered a new phase of its history. Today we possess sufficient
economic, cultural, and spiritual resources to introduce a better global order.
But old and new ethnic, national, social, economic, and religious tensions
threaten the peaceful building of a better world. We have experienced greater
technological progress than ever before, yet we see that worldwide poverty,
hunger, death of children, unemployment, misery, and the destruction of nature
have not diminished but rather have increased. Many peoples are threatened
with economic ruin, social disarray, political marginalisation, ecological
catastrophe, and national collapse.
In such a dramatic global situation humanity needs a vision of peoples living
peacefully together, of ethnic and ethical groupings and of religions sharing
responsibility for the care of Earth. A vision rests on hopes, goals, ideals,
standards. But all over the world these have slipped from our hands. Yet we
are convinced that, despite their frequent abuses and failures, it is the
communities of faith who bear a responsibility to demonstrate that such hopes,
ideals, and standards can be guarded, grounded, and lived. This is especially
true in the modern state. Guarantees of freedom of conscience and religion are
necessary but they do not substitute for binding values, convictions, and norms
which are valid for all humans regardless of their social origin, sex, skin color,
language, or religion.
We are convinced of the fundamental unity of the human family on Earth. We
recall the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.
What it formally proclaimed on the level of rights we wish to confirm and
deepen here from the perspective of an ethic: the full realisation of the intrinsic
dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle
of all humans, and the necessary solidarity and interdependence of all humans
with each other.
On the basis of personal experiences and the burdensome history of our planet
we have learned
* that a better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws,
prescriptions, and conventions alone;
* that the realisation of peace, justice, and the protection of Earth depends on
the insight and readiness of men and women to act justly;
* that action in favor of rights and freedoms presumes a consciousness of
responsibility and duty, and that therefore both the minds and hearts of women
and men must be addressed;
* that rights without morality cannot long endure, and that "there will be no
better global order without a global ethic."
By a global ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion
beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion
over all others. By a global ethic we mean a fundamental consensus on
binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. Without such a
fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every community will be
threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair.
II. A fundamental demand:
every human being must be treated humanely.
We all are fallible, imperfect men and women with limitations and defects. We
know the reality of evil. Precisely because of this, we feel compelled for the
sake of global welfare to express what the fundamental elements of a global
ethic should be – for individuals as well as for communities and organisations,
225
for states as well as for the religions themselves. We trust that our often
millennia-old religious and ethical traditions provide an ethic which is
convincing and practicable for all women and men of good will, religious and
non-religious.
At the same time we know that our various religious and ethical traditions often
offer very different bases for what is helpful and what is unhelpful for men and
women, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. We do
not wish to gloss over or ignore the serious differences among the individual
religions. However, they should not hinder us from proclaiming publicly those
things which we already hold in common and which we jointly affirm, each on
the basis of our own religious or ethical grounds.
We know that religions cannot solve the environmental, economic, political,
and social problems of Earth. However they can provide what obviously cannot
be attained by economic plans, political programs, or legal regulations alone: a
change in the inner orientation, the whole mentality, the "hearts" of people, and
a conversion from a false path to a new orientation for life. Humankind urgently
needs social and ecological reforms, but it needs spiritual renewal just as
urgently. As religious or spiritual persons we commit ourselves to this task. The
spiritual powers of the religions can offer a fundamental sense of trust, a
ground of meaning, ultimate standards, and a spiritual home. Of course
religions are credible only when they eliminate those conflicts which spring
from the religions themselves, dismantling mutual arrogance, mistrust,
prejudice, and even hostile images, and thus demonstrating respect for the
traditions, holy places, feasts, and rituals of people who believe differently.
Now as before, women and men are treated inhumanely all over the world.
They are robbed of their opportunities and their freedom; their human rights
are trampled underfoot; their dignity is disregarded. But might does not make
right! In the face of all inhumanity our religious and ethical convictions demand
that "every human being must be treated humanely!"
This means that every human being without distinction of age, sex, race, skin
color, physical or mental ability, language, religion, political view, or national or
social origin possesses an inalienable and untouchable dignity, and everyone,
the individual as well as the state, is therefore obliged to honor this dignity and
protect it. Humans must always be the subjects of rights, must be ends, never
mere means, never objects of commercialisation and industrialisation in
economics, politics and media, in research institutes, and industrial
corporations. No one stands "above good and evil" -- no human being, no
social class, no influential interest group, no cartel, no police apparatus, no
army, and no state. On the contrary: possessed of reason and conscience,
every human is obliged to behave in a genuinely human fashion, to do good
and avoid evil!
It is the intention of this global ethic to clarify what this means. In it we wish to
recall irrevocable, unconditional ethical norms. These should not be bonds and
chains, but helps and supports for people to find and realize once again their
lives' direction, values, orientations, and meaning.
There is a principle which is found and has persisted in many religious and
ethical traditions of humankind for thousands of years: "What you do not wish
done to yourself, do not do to others." Or in positive terms: "What you wish
done to yourself, do to others!" This should be the irrevocable, unconditional
norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations, and
religions.
Every form of egoism should be rejected: all selfishness, whether individual or
collective, whether in the form of class thinking, racism, nationalism, or sexism.
We condemn these because they prevent humans from being authentically
human. Self-determination and self-realisation are thoroughly legitimate so
226
long as they are not separated from human self-responsibility and global
responsibility, that is, from responsibility for fellow humans and for the planet
Earth.
This principle implies very concrete standards to which we humans should hold
firm. From it arise four broad, ancient guidelines for human behavior which are
found in most of the religions of the world.
III. Irrevocable directives.
1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives not
determined by egoism but by commitment to their fellow humans and to the
world around them. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless hatred,
envy, jealousy, and violence, not only between individuals but also between
social and ethnic groups, between classes, races, nations, and religions. The
use of violence, drug trafficking and organized crime, often equipped with new
technical possibilities, has reached global proportions. Many places still are
ruled by terror "from above;" dictators oppress their own people, and
institutional violence is widespread. Even in some countries where laws exist to
protect individual freedoms, prisoners are tortured, men and women are
mutilated, hostages are killed.
a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the
directive: "You shall not kill!" Or in positive terms: "Have respect for life!" Let us
reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: All people have a
right to life, safety, and the free development of personality insofar as they do
not injure the rights of others. No one has the right physically or psychically to
torture, injure, much less kill, any other human being. And no people, no state,
no race, no religion has the right to hate, to discriminate against, to
"cleanse," to exile, much less to liquidate a "foreign" minority which is different
in behavior or holds different beliefs.
b) Of course, wherever there are humans there will be conflicts. Such conflicts,
however, should be resolved without violence within a framework of justice.
This is true for states as well as for individuals. Persons who hold political
power must work within the framework of a just order and commit themselves
to the most nonviolent, peaceful solutions possible. And they should work for
this within an international order of peace which itself has need of protection
and defense against perpetrators of violence. Armament is a mistaken path;
disarmament is the commandment of the times. Let no one be deceived: There
is no survival for humanity without global peace!
c) Young people must learn at home and in school that violence may not be a
means of settling differences with others. Only thus can a culture of
nonviolence be created.
d) A human person is infinitely precious and must be unconditionally protected.
But likewise the lives of animals and plants which inhabit this planet with us
deserve protection, preservation, and care. Limitless exploitation of the natural
foundations of life, ruthless destruction of the biosphere, and militarisation of
the cosmos are all outrages. As human beings we have a special responsibility
-- especially with a view to future generations -- for Earth and the cosmos, for
the air, water, and soil. We are all intertwined together in this cosmos and we
are all dependent on each other. Each one of us depends on the welfare of all.
Therefore the dominance of humanity over nature and the cosmos must not be
encouraged. Instead we must cultivate living in harmony with nature and the
cosmos.
e) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical
traditions means that in public as well as in private life we must be concerned
227
for others and ready to help. We must never be ruthless and brutal. Every
people, every race, every religion must show tolerance and respect – indeed
high appreciation -- for every other. Minorities need protection and support,
whether they be racial, ethnic, or religious.
2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order
Numberless men and women of all regions and religions strive to live their lives
in solidarity with one another and to work for authentic fulfillment of their
vocations. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless hunger, deficiency,
and need. Not only individuals, but especially unjust institutions and structures
are responsible for these tragedies. Millions of people are without work;
millions are exploited by poor wages, forced to the edges of society, with their
possibilities for the future destroyed. In many lands the gap between the poor
and the rich, between the powerful and the powerless is immense. We live in a
world in which totalitarian state socialism as well as unbridled capitalism have
hollowed out and destroyed many ethical and spiritual values. A materialistic
mentality breeds greed for unlimited profit and a grasping for endless plunder.
These demands claim more and more of the community's resources without
obliging the individual to contribute more. The cancerous social evil of
corruption thrives in the developing countries and in the developed countries
alike.
a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the
directive: "You shall not steal! " Or in positive terms: "Deal honestly and fairly!
"Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: no one has
the right to rob or dispossess in any way whatsoever any other person or the
commonweal. Further, no one has the right to use her or his possessions
without concern for the needs of society and Earth.
b) Where extreme poverty reigns, helplessness and despair spread, and theft
occurs again and again for the sake of survival. Where power and wealth are
accumulated ruthlessly, feelings of envy, resentment, and deadly hatred and
rebellion inevitably well up in the disadvantaged and marginalized. This leads
to a vicious circle of violence and counter-violence. Let no one be deceived:
there is no global peace without global justice!
c) Young people must learn at home and in school that property, limited though
it may be, carries with it an obligation, and that its uses should at the same
time serve the common good. Only thus can a just economic order be built up.
d) If the plight of the poorest billions of humans on this planet, particularly
women and children, is to be improved, the world economy must be structured
more justly. Individual good deeds, and assistance projects, indispensable
though they be, are insufficient. The participation of all states and the authority
of international organisations are needed to build just economic institutions.
A solution which can be supported by all sides must be sought for the debt
crisis and the poverty of the dissolving second world, and even more the third
world. Of course conflicts of interest are unavoidable. In the developed
countries, a distinction must be made between necessary and limitless
consumption, between socially beneficial and non-beneficial uses of property,
between justified and unjustified uses of natural resources, and between a
profit-only and a socially beneficial and ecologically oriented market economy.
Even the developing nations must search their national consciences.
Wherever those ruling threaten to repress those ruled, wherever institutions
threaten persons, and wherever might oppresses right, we are obligated to
resist -- whenever possible non-violently.
e) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical
traditions means the following:
228
* We must utilize economic and political power for service to humanity instead
of misusing it in ruthless battles for domination. We must develop a spirit of
compassion with those who suffer, with special care for the children, the aged,
the poor, the disabled, the refugees, and the lonely.
* We must cultivate mutual respect and consideration, so as to reach a
reasonable balance of interests, instead of thinking only of unlimited power and
unavoidable competitive struggles.
* We must value a sense of moderation and modesty instead of an
unquenchable greed for money, prestige, and consumption. In greed humans
lose their "souls," their freedom, their composure, their inner peace, and thus
that which makes them human.
3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness
Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives of
honesty and truthfulness. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless lies
and deceit, swindling and hypocrisy, ideology and demagoguery:
* Politicians and business people who use lies as a means to success;
* Mass media which spread ideological propaganda instead of accurate
reporting, misinformation instead of information, cynical commercial interest
instead of loyalty to the truth;
* Scientists and researchers who give themselves over to morally questionable
ideological or political programs or to economic interest groups, or who justify
research which violates
fundamental ethical values;
* Representatives of religions who dismiss other religions as of little value and
who preach fanaticism and intolerance instead of respect and understanding.
a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the
directive: "You shall not lie!" Or in positive terms: "Speak and act truthfully!" Let
us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: No woman or
man, no institution, no state or church or religious community has the right to
speak lies to other humans.
b) This is especially true
* for those who work in the mass media, to whom we entrust the freedom to
report for the sake of truth and to whom we thus grant the office of guardian -they do not stand above morality but have the obligation to respect human
dignity, human rights, and fundamental values; they are duty-bound to
objectivity, fairness, and the preservation of human dignity; they have no right
to intrude into individuals' private spheres, to manipulate public opinion, or to
distort reality;
* for artists, writers, and scientists, to whom we entrust artistic and academic
freedom; they are not exempt from general ethical standards and must serve
the truth;
* for the leaders of countries, politicians, and political parties, to whom we
entrust our own freedoms -- when they lie in the faces of their people, when
they manipulate the truth, or when they are guilty of venality or ruthlessness in
domestic or foreign affairs, they forsake their credibility and deserve to lose
their offices and their voters; conversely, public opinion should support those
politicians who dare to speak the truth to the people at all times;
229
* finally, for representatives of religion -- when they stir up prejudice, hatred,
and enmity towards those of different belief, or even incite or legitimize
religious wars, they deserve the condemnation of humankind and the loss of
their adherents.
Let no one be deceived: there is no global justice without truthfulness and
humaneness!
c) Young people must learn at home and in school to think, speak, and act
truthfully. They have a right to information and education to be able to make
the decisions that will form their lives. Without an ethical formation they will
hardly be able to distinguish the important from the unimportant. In the daily
flood of information, ethical standards will help them discern when opinions are
portrayed as facts, interests veiled, tendencies exaggerated, and facts twisted.
d) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical
traditions means the following:
* We must not confuse freedom with arbitrariness or pluralism with indifference
to truth.
* We must cultivate truthfulness in all our relationships instead of dishonesty,
dissembling, and opportunism.
* We must constantly seek truth and incorruptible sincerity instead of spreading
ideological or partisan half-truths.
* We must courageously serve the truth and we must remain constant and
trustworthy, instead of yielding to opportunistic accommodation to life.
4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and
women
Numberless men and women of all regions and religions strive to live their lives
in a spirit of partnership and responsible action in the areas of love, sexuality,
and family. Nevertheless, all over the world there are condemnable forms of
patriarchy, domination of one sex over the other, exploitation of women, sexual
misuse of children, and forced prostitution. Too frequently, social inequities
force women and even children into prostitution as a means of survival,
particularly in less developed countries.
a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the
directive: "You shall not commit sexual immorality!" Or in positive terms:
"Respect and love one another!" Let us reflect anew on the consequences of
this ancient directive: no one has the right to degrade others to mere sex
objects, to lead them into or hold them in sexual dependency.
b) We condemn sexual exploitation and sexual discrimination as one of the
worst forms of human degradation. We have the duty to resist wherever the
domination of one sex over the other is preached -- even in the name of
religious conviction; wherever sexual exploitation is tolerated, wherever
prostitution is fostered or children are misused. Let no one be deceived: There
is no authentic humaneness without a living together in partnership!
c) Young people must learn at home and in school that sexuality is not a
negative, destructive, or exploitative force, but creative and affirmative.
Sexuality as a life-affirming shaper of community can only be effective when
partners accept the responsibilities of caring for one another's happiness.
d) The relationship between women and men should be characterized not by
patronizing behavior or exploitation, but by love, partnership, and
trustworthiness. Human fulfillment is not identical with sexual pleasure.
230
Sexuality should express and reinforce a loving relationship lived by equal
partners.
Some religious traditions know the ideal of a voluntary renunciation of the full
use of sexuality. Voluntary renunciation also can be an expression of identity
and meaningful fulfillment.
e) The social institution of marriage, despite all its cultural and religious variety,
is characterized by love, loyalty, and permanence. It aims at and should
guarantee security and mutual support to husband, wife, and child. It should
secure the rights of all family members.
All lands and cultures should develop economic and social relationships which
will enable marriage and family life worthy of human beings, especially for
older people. Children have a right of access to education. Parents should not
exploit children, nor children parents. Their relationships should reflect mutual
respect, appreciation, and concern.
f) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical
traditions means the following:
* We need mutual respect, partnership, and understanding, instead of
patriarchal domination and degradation, which are expressions of violence and
engender counter- violence.
* We need mutual concern, tolerance, readiness for reconciliation, and love,
instead of any form of possessive lust or sexual misuse.
Only what has already been experienced in personal and familial relationships
can be practiced on the level of nations and religions.
IV. A Transformation of Consciousness!
Historical experience demonstrates the following: Earth cannot be changed for
the better unless we achieve a transformation in the consciousness of
individuals and in public life. The possibilities for transformation have already
been glimpsed in areas such as war and peace, economy, and ecology, where
in recent decades fundamental changes have taken place. This transformation
must also be achieved in the area of ethics and values!
Every individual has intrinsic dignity and inalienable rights, and each also has
an inescapable responsibility for what she or he does and does not do. All our
decisions and deeds, even our omissions and failures, have consequences.
Keeping this sense of responsibility alive, deepening it and passing it on to
future generations, is the special task of religions.
We are realistic about what we have achieved in this consensus, and so we
urge that the following be observed:
1. A universal consensus on many disputed ethical questions (from bio- and
sexual ethics through mass media and scientific ethics to economic and
political ethics) will be difficult to attain. Nevertheless, even for many
controversial questions, suitable solutions should be attainable in the spirit of
the fundamental principles we have jointly developed here.
2. In many areas of life a new consciousness of ethical responsibility has
already arisen. Therefore we would be pleased if as many professions as
possible, such as those of physicians, scientists, business people, journalists,
and politicians, would develop up-to-date codes of ethics which would provide
specific guidelines for the vexing questions of these particular professions.
231
3. Above all, we urge the various communities of faith to formulate their very
specific ethics: what does each faith tradition have to say, for example, about
the meaning of life and death, the enduring of suffering and the forgiveness of
guilt, about selfless sacrifice and the necessity of renunciation, about
compassion and joy? These will deepen, and make more specific, the already
discernible global ethic.
In conclusion, we appeal to all the inhabitants of this planet. Earth cannot be
changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed. We
pledge to work for such transformation in individual and collective
consciousness, for the awakening of our spiritual powers through reflection,
meditation, prayer, or positive thinking, for a conversion of the heart. Together
we can move mountains! Without a willingness to take risks and a readiness to
sacrifice there can be no fundamental change in our situation! Therefore we
commit ourselves to a common global ethic, to better mutual understanding, as
well as to socially beneficial, peace-fostering, and Earth-friendly ways of life.
We invite all men and women, whether religious or not, to do the same.
NOTE: This interfaith declaration is the result of a two-year consultation among
approximately two hundred scholars and theologians from many of the world's
communities of faith. On September 2-4, 1993, the document was discussed by
an assembly of religious and spiritual leaders meeting as part of the 1993
Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. Respected leaders from all the
world's major faiths signed the "Declaration", agreeing that it represents an initial
effort -- a point of beginning for a world sorely in need of ethical consensus. The
Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions and those who have endorsed
this text offer it to the world as an initial statement of the rules for living on which
the world's religions can agree.
232
APPENDIX D: World Charter for Nature
World Charter for Nature1
United Nations
A/RES/37/7
General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL
28 October 1982
ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH
A/RES/37/7
48th plenary
meeting
28 October 1982
37/7.
World Charter for Nature
The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on
the revised draft World Charter for Nature,
Recalling that, in its resolution 35/7 of 30 October 1980,
it expressed its conviction that the benefits which could be
obtained from nature depended on the maintenance of natural
processes and on the diversity of life forms and that those
benefits were jeopardized by the excessive exploitation and the
destruction of natural habitats,
Further recalling that, in the same resolution, it
recognized the need for appropriate measures at the national
and international levels to protect nature and promote
international co-operation in that field,
Recalling that, in its resolution 36/6 of 27 October 1981,
it again expressed its awareness of the crucial importance
1
United Nations website “World Charter for Nature” at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm.
233
attached by the international community to the promotion and
development of co-operation aimed at protecting and
safeguarding the balance and quality of nature and invited the
Secretary-General to transmit to Member States the text of the
revised version of the draft World Charter for Nature contained
in the report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the draft World
Charter for Nature, as well as any further observations by
States, with a view to appropriate consideration by the General
Assembly at its thirty-seventh session,
Conscious of the spirit and terms of its resolutions 35/7
and 36/6, in which it solemnly invited Member States, in the
exercise of their permanent sovereignty over their natural
resources, to conduct their activities in recognition of the
supreme importance of protecting natural systems, maintaining
the balance and quality of nature and conserving natural
resources, in the interests of present and future generations,
Having considered the supplementary report of the
Secretary-General,
Expressing its gratitude to the Ad Hoc Group of Experts
which, through its work, has assembled the necessary elements
for the General Assembly to be able to complete the
consideration of and adopt the revised draft World Charter for
Nature at its thirty-seventh session, as it had previously
recommended,
Adopts and solemnly proclaims the World Charter for Nature
contained in the annex to the present resolution.
ANNEX
World Charter for Nature
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the fundamental purposes of the United
Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace
and security, the development of friendly relations among
nations and the achievement of international co-operation in
solving international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, technical, intellectual or humanitarian character,
Aware that:
(a) Mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the
uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the
supply of energy and nutrients,
(b) Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped
human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific
achievement, and living in harmony with nature gives man the
best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and
for rest and recreation,
234
Convinced that:
(a) Every form of life is unique, warranting respect
regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms
such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action,
(b) Man
his action or
recognize the
of nature and
can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by
its consequences and, therefore, must fully
urgency of maintaining the stability and quality
of conserving natural resources,
Persuaded that:
(a) Lasting benefits from nature depend upon the
maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support
systems, and upon the diversity of life forms, which are
jeopardized through excessive exploitation and habitat
destruction by man,
(b) The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive
consumption and misuse of natural resources, as well as to
failure to establish an appropriate economic order among
peoples and among States, leads to the breakdown of the
economic, social and political framework of civilization,
(c) Competition for scarce resources creates conflicts,
whereas the conservation of nature and natural resources
contributes to justice and the maintenance of peace and cannot
be achieved until mankind learns to live in peace and to
forsake war and armaments,
Reaffirming that man must acquire the knowledge to
maintain and enhance his ability to use natural resources in a
manner which ensures the preservation of the species and
ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations,
Firmly convinced of the need for appropriate measures, at
the national and international, individual and collective, and
private and public levels, to protect nature and promote
international co-operation in this field,
Adopts, to these ends, the present World Charter for
Nature, which proclaims the following principles of
conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to
be guided and judged.
I.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1.
Nature shall be respected and its essential processes
shall not be impaired.
2.
The genetic viability on the earth shall not be
compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and
235
domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival,
and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.
3.
All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be
subject to these principles of conservation; special protection
shall be given to unique areas, to representative samples of
all the different types of ecosystems and to the habitats of
rare or endangered species.
4.
Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine
and atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be
managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable
productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the
integrity of those other ecosystems or species with which they
coexist.
5.
Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by
warfare or other hostile activities.
II.
FUNCTIONS
6.
In the decision-making process it shall be recognized
that man's needs can be met only by ensuring the proper
functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles
set forth in the present Charter.
7.
In the planning and implementation of social and
economic development activities, due account shall be taken of
the fact that the conservation of nature is an integral part of
those activities.
8.
In formulating long-term plans for economic
development, population growth and the improvement of standards
of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity
of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of
the populations concerned, recognizing that this capacity may
be enhanced through science and technology.
9.
The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses
shall be planned, and due account shall be taken of the
physical constraints, the biological productivity and diversity
and the natural beauty of the areas concerned.
10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with
a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the
present Charter, in accordance with the following rules:
(a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of
their natural capacity for regeneration;
(b) The productivity of soils shall be maintained or
enhanced through measures which safeguard their long-term
fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent
erosion and all other forms of degradation;
236
(c) Resources, including water, which are not consumed as
they are used shall be reused or recycled;
(d) Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they
are used shall be exploited with restraint, taking into account
their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them
for consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation
with the functioning of natural systems.
11. Activities which might have an impact on nature shall
be controlled, and the best available technologies that
minimize significant risks to nature or other adverse effects
shall be used; in particular:
(a) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible
damage to nature shall be avoided;
(b) Activities which are likely to pose a significant
risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination;
their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits
outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential
adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should
not proceed;
(c) Activities which may disturb nature shall be preceded
by assessment of their consequences, and environmental impact
studies of development projects shall be conducted sufficiently
in advance, and if they are to be undertaken, such activities
shall be planned and carried out so as to minimize potential
adverse effects;
(d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries
practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and
constraints of given areas;
(e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be
rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural
potential and compatible with the well-being of affected
populations.
12. Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be
avoided and:
(a) Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be
treated at the source, using the best practicable means
available;
(b) Special precautions shall be taken to prevent
discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes.
13. Measures intended to prevent, control or limit
natural disasters, infestations and diseases shall be
specifically directed to the causes of these scourges and shall
avoid adverse side-effects on nature.
237
III.
IMPLEMENTATION
14. The principles set forth in the present Charter shall
be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as
at the international level.
15. Knowledge of nature shall be broadly disseminated by
all possible means, particularly by ecological education as an
integral part of general education.
16. All planning shall include, among its essential
elements, the formulation of strategies for the conservation of
nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems and
assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and
activities; all of these elements shall be disclosed to the
public by appropriate means in time to permit effective
consultation and participation.
17. Funds, programmes and administrative structures
necessary to achieve the objective of the conservation of
nature shall be provided.
18. Constant efforts shall be made to increase knowledge
of nature by scientific research and to disseminate such
knowledge unimpeded by restrictions of any kind.
19. The status of natural processes, ecosystems and
species shall be closely monitored to enable early detection of
degradation or threat, ensure timely intervention and
facilitate the evaluation of conservation policies and methods.
20.
avoided.
Military activities damaging to nature shall be
21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public
authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups
and corporations shall:
(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through
common activities and other relevant actions, including
information exchange and consultations;
(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing
processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as
agreed methodologies for assessing these effects;
(c) Implement the applicable international legal
provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of
the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or
control do not cause damage to the natural systems located
within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction;
238
(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond
national jurisdiction.
22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States
over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to
the provisions of the present Charter through its competent
organs and in co-operation with other States.
23. All persons, in accordance with their national
legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate,
individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of
direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to
means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or
degradation.
Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the
present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or
through participation in the political process, each person shall strive
to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter
are met.
239
APPENDIX E: The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious
and Spiritual Leaders
THE MILLENNIUM WORLD PEACE SUMMIT OF RELIGIOUS AND
SPIRITUAL LEADERS 2
Commitment to Global Peace
Humanity stands at a critical juncture in history, one that calls for strong moral and spiritual leadership to help set a new
direction for society. We, as religious and spiritual leaders, recognize our special responsibility for the well-being of the
human family and peace on earth.
Whereas the United Nations and the religions of the world have a common concern for human dignity,
justice and peace;
Whereas we accept that men and women are equal partners in all aspects of life and children are the hope of
the future;
Whereas religions have contributed to the peace of the world but have also been used to create division and fuel
hostilities;
Whereas our world is plagued by violence, war and destruction, which are sometimes perpetrated in the name of
religion;
Whereas armed conflict is a dire tragedy for the human lives ruined and lost, for the larger living world, and for
the future of our religious and spiritual traditions;
Whereas no individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world,
but rather all must realize that our every action has an impact on others and the emerging global community;
Whereas in an interdependent world peace requires agreement on fundamental ethical values;
Whereas there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural and
religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding;
Whereas building peace requires an attitude of reverence for life, freedom and justice, the eradication of poverty,
and the protection of the environment for present and future generations;
Whereas a true culture of peace must be founded upon the cultivation of the inner dimension of peace, which is
the heritage of the religious and spiritual traditions;
Whereas religious and spiritual traditions are a core source of the realization of a better life for the human family
and all life on Earth.
In light of the above, and with a view to discharging our duty to the human family, we declare our commitment and
determination:
1. To collaborate with the United Nations and all men and women of goodwill locally, regionally and globally in
the pursuit of peace in all its dimensions;;
2. To lead humanity by word and deed in a renewed commitment to ethical and spiritual values, which include a
deep sense of respect for all life and for each person's inherent dignity and right to live in a world free of violence
3. To manage and resolve nonviolently the conflicts generated by religious and ethnic differences, and to condemn
all violence committed in the name of religion while seeking to remove the roots of the violence;
4. To appeal to all religious communities and ethnic and national groups to respect the right to freedom of religion,
to seek reconciliation, and to engage in mutual forgiveness and healing;
5. To awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the human
family as a whole and a recognition that all human beings regardless of religion, race, gender and ethnic origin
have the right to education, health care, and an opportunity to achieve a secure and sustainable livelihood;
6. To promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations, eradicating poverty and
reversing the current trend toward a widening gap between rich and poor;
7. To educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth's ecological systems and all forms
of life and to support efforts to make environmental protection and restoration integral to all development planning
and activity;
8. To develop and promote a global reforestation campaign as a concrete and practical means for environmental
restoration, calling upon others to join us in regional tree planting programs;
9. To join with the United Nations in the call for all nation states to work for the universal abolition of nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction for the safety and security of life on this planet;
10. To combat those commercial practices and applications of technology that degrade the environment and the
World Council of Churches website “The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders” at http://wcccoe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd36-12.html.
2
240
quality of human life;
11. To practice and promote in our communities the values of the inner dimension of peace, including especially
study, prayer, meditation, a sense of the sacred, humility, love, compassion, tolerance and a spirit of service, which
are fundamental to the creation of a peaceful society.
We, as religious and spiritual leaders, pledge our commitment to work together to promote the inner and outer
conditions that foster peace and the nonviolent management and resolution of conflict. We appeal to the followers
of all religious traditions and to the human community as a whole to cooperate in building peaceful societies, to
seek mutual understanding through dialogue where there are differences, to refrain from violence, to practice
compassion, and to uphold the dignity of all life.
Bawa Jain, Secretary General of the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders
241
APPENDIX F: The Earth Charter
THE EARTH CHARTER3
Preamble
We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its
future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once
holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst
of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth
community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable
global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice,
and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth,
declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future
generations.
Earth, Our Home
Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique
community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain
adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life's evolution. The resilience
of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy
biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils,
pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common
concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred
trust.
The Global Situation
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental
devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities
are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap
between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are
widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population
has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are
threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.
The Challenges Ahead
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the
destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our
values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been
met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the
knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment.
The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic
and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges
are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.
3
The Earth Charter Initiative website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html.
242
Universal Responsibility
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility,
identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We
are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are
linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human
family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is
strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of
life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.
We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the
emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following
interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the
conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational
institutions is to be guided and assessed.
Principles
I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE
1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.
a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value
regardless of its worth to human beings.
b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic,
ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.
2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.
a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty
to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.
b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased
responsibility to promote the common good.
3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.
a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental
freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.
b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and
meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.
4. Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.
a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of
future generations.
b. Transmit to future generations’ values, traditions, and institutions that support the
long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities.
In order to fulfil these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:
II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special
concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
243
a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make
environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands
and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and
preserve our natural heritage.
c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.
d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native
species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and
marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of
ecosystems.
f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and
fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when
knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm
even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.
b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause
significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.
c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long
distance, and global consequences of human activities.
d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive,
toxic, or other hazardous substances.
e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard
Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.
a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption
systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.
b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on
renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound
technologies.
d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling
price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and
environmental standards.
e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and
responsible reproduction.
f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite
world.
8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange
and wide application of the knowledge acquired.
a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability with
special attention to the needs of developing nations.
b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures
that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.
c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental
protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.
244
III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil,
shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.
b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a
sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable
to support themselves.
c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable
them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human
development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing
nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.
c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection,
and progressive labor standards.
d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act
transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their
activities.
11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development
and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.
b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil,
social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and
beneficiaries.
c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.
12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social
environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being,
with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, colour, sex,
sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.
b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and
resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.
c. Honour and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfil their
essential role in creating sustainable societies.
d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.
IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE
13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and
accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access
to justice.
a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental
matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which
they have an interest.
b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful
participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.
c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association,
and dissent.
d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial
245
procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such
harm.
e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.
f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and
assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be
carried out most effectively.
14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and
skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that
empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.
b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in
sustainability education.
c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social
challenges.
d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.
15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.
b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause
extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.
c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted
species.
16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all
peoples and within and among nations.
b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative
problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.
c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense
posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological
restoration.
d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction.
e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and
peace.
f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself,
other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.
The Way Forward
As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such
renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfil this promise, we must
commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.
This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global
interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply
the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our
cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive
ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated
the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for
truth and wisdom.
246
Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices.
However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with
the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family,
organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions,
educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and
governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil
society, and business is essential for effective governance.
In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their
commitment to the United Nations, fulfil their obligations under existing international
agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an
international legally binding instrument on environment and development.
Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm
resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and
the joyful celebration of life.
247
APPENDIX G: Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change & Religious
Traditions Call to Climate Action4
The nurturing and respect for Life is a central doctrine of all faiths on Earth. Yet today
we are endangering life on Earth with unacceptably high and rising levels of greenhouse
gas emissions. These gases are destabilizing the global climate system, heating the
Earth, acidifying the oceans, and putting both humanity and all living creatures at
unacceptable risk.
The extraordinary delicacy of Nature’s balance is becoming increasingly apparent, even
as human actions inflict ever larger, more dangerous and potentially irreversible
changes on the indivisible web of atmosphere, earth, ocean and life that is creation.
Today our faiths stand united in their call to care for the Earth, and to protect the poor
and the suffering. Strong action on climate change is imperative by the principles and
traditions of our faiths and the collective compassion, wisdom and leadership of
humanity.
We recognize the science of climate change, and we call for global leaders to adopt
strong, binding, science-based targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases in order to
avert the worst dangers of a climate crisis. We urge the nations of Earth to ensure that
those who will suffer under climate- induced changes such as more severe storms,
floods, droughts and rising seas, be aided to adapt, survive and equitably prosper.
We recognize that climate change is not merely an economic or technical problem, but
rather at its core is a moral, spiritual and cultural one. We therefore pledge to join
together to teach and guide the people who follow the call of our faiths. We must all
learn to live together within the shared limits of our planet.
We recognize that just as climate change presents us with great challenges, so too it
offers great opportunities. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can stimulate economies
sustainably, protect our planet, lift up the poor, and unite to a common cause people
threatened by a common danger. Assisting vulnerable communities and species to
survive and adapt to climate change fulfills our calling to wisdom, mercy, and the
highest of human moral and ethical values.
We commit ourselves to action – to changing our habits, our choices, and the way we
see the world – to learning and teaching our families, friends, and faiths – to conserving
the limited resources of our home, planet Earth, and preserving the climate conditions
upon which life depends.
In this spirit, we call upon our leaders, those of our faiths, and all people of Earth to
accept the reality of the common danger we face, the imperative and responsibility for
immediate and decisive action, and the opportunity to change.
4
Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change at http://www.interfaithdeclaration.org/.
248
Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action,
Sept. 21, 2009
RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION5
We, representatives of diverse religious traditions from around the world gathered on the
International Day of Peace, reflect in story, song and prayer about humanity’s collective
responsibility in the climate crisis. We are entrusted with the well-being of people around
the world. There is more than an agreement at stake.
WE RECOGNIZE particularly that indigenous peoples have a profound stewardship of
Creation and affirm their worldview, which sees the connectedness of all living things and
our collective interdependence. This is a view that we need to adopt in fighting the effects
of climate change. With dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions, destabilizing
earth’s climate, acidifying the oceans, threatening the living systems on which all life
depends, both humanity and all living creatures now face unacceptable risk.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE our collective responsibility for the climate danger and
suffering faced by the most affected and marginalized among us, those in extreme
poverty, the disabled, older persons, those in coastal communities, on small islands, who
are bearing the worst impacts of the climate crisis while contributing least to it.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE that while climate change affects everyone and everything, it does
not affect all equally, disproportionately affecting women and people of color. Without
appropriate and urgent action, plant and animal species, as well as people and cultures,
will increasingly continue to suffer and to die. This concerns us.
WE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE that although governments can mold policy and
commitments, which can be global in effect, governments alone cannot make the change
of heart and mind that will turn the human-earth community into a global culture of
ecological responsibility. This task belongs to all of us.
WE URGE you therefore to take bold action that demonstrates the attitudinal shift that will
mark the Copenhagen negotiations in December 2009 as the time when humanity came
together to avert a climate crisis and we unite our diverse voices in the following Call to
Action. There’s more than an agreement at stake.
CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION
Our religions stand united in their call to care for the Earth and her peoples. We stand
united in our insistence that those most affected by this crisis, with fewest choices, have a
just hearing and recourse.
Recognizing that climate change is not merely an economic or technical problem, but at
its core is a moral, spiritual and cultural one, we therefore pledge to join together to teach
and guide the people who follow the call of our religions. We must all learn to live together
within the shared limits of our planet.
World Council of Churches website “Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action” at
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climatechange-water/religious-traditions-call-to-climate-action?set_language=en.
5
249
We commit ourselves to action: to changing our habits of consumption, our choices about
what makes for a life of wellbeing, and the way we see the world; to learning;
to teaching our families, friends and faiths; to conserving the limited resources of our
home, planet Earth, and to preserving the climate conditions upon which life depends,
while continuously working to develop practices of sustainable development, where the
fundamental rights to health, housing, food, decent work would be available to all.
We call for global leaders boldly to adopt strong, binding, science-based targets for the
reduction of greenhouse gases in order to avert the worst dangers of a climate crisis based
on a climate justice framework.
We call upon the industrialized nations to act responsibly in mitigation efforts by making
the largest cuts in carbon emissions, showing leadership in their ethical behavior.
We urge all nations of Earth to ensure that those who will be most affected under climateinduced changes such as more severe storms, floods, droughts and rising seas, be given
what they need to adapt, survive and equitably prosper.
We call upon industrialized nations to acknowledge their higher level of responsibility for
creating development models that have caused this unintended but tragic consequence for
much of climate change. We ask that therefore they contribute a higher proportion of their
GNP to those countries suffering the worst effects of climate change.
We call upon industrialized nations to place a priority on building just and sustainable
development models in both the North and South, where all are ensured of food, housing
and healthcare according to the traditions of our religions and the collective compassion,
wisdom and leadership of humanity.
We urge those making decisions at the tables of governmental power to insist that the
voices of those nations and peoples most affected by climate change and with the least
choice be at their deliberations to serve as a visible witness that the climate crisis is now.
We call upon our leaders to recognize the crucial stewardship role of indigenous peoples
the need to cooperate with and to support their adaptation initiatives, and to strengthen
their vital contributions to climate change mitigation. We call for an immediate stop to
mitigation measures adversely impacting indigenous peoples, causing displacement,
environmental degradation of traditional lands and serious human rights violations.
We further urge that the natural world itself be considered a partner at the table and not a
commodity to be used solely for human pleasure or gain.
We call upon our leaders, those of our faiths and all people of Earth to accept the reality of
the common danger we face, the imperative and responsibility for immediate and decisive
action and the opportunity to change.
There’s more than an agreement at stake.
250
APPENDIX H: High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly
on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and
Cooperation for Peace
High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural
Understanding and Cooperation for Peace6
Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society
4 October 2007
I. Introduction
1. The General Assembly, in its resolution 61/221 of 20 December 2006, (OP. 14)
decided “to convene in 2007 a high-level dialogue on interreligious and intercultural
cooperation for the promotion of tolerance, understanding and universal respect for
matters of freedom of religion or belief and cultural diversity, in coordination with
other similar initiatives in this area”.
2. In its resolution 61/269 of 25 May 2007, the General Assembly further decided
that the High-level Dialogue would be held on Thursday and Friday, 4 and 5 October
2007 at the ministerial or highest possible level, and that it would consist of three
plenary meetings: one in the morning of Thursday, 4 October and two on Friday, 5
October. By the same resolution, the General Assembly also decided to hold in the
afternoon of 4 October 2007 an informal interactive hearing with representatives of
civil society, including representatives of non-governmental organizations and the
private sector, to be chaired by the President of the General Assembly.
3. The objective of the informal interactive hearing was to provide an opportunity for
Member States to engage in dialogue with experts from civil society, including nongovernmental organizations and the private sector representing diverse regions,
cultures and perspectives, with a view to: i) strengthening efforts to promote
interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation by engaging a variety
of actors and constituencies in government, civil society and the United Nations
system; ii) promoting a culture of peace and dialogue among civilizations, and
advancing multi-stakeholder coalitions on related issues; and iii) translating shared
values into action in order to achieve sustainable peace in the 21st Century.
4. The Office of the President of the United Nations General Assembly convened a
‘Task Force’ of civil society representatives to help ensure the effective participation
and optimal engagement of civil society, including NGOs and the private sector, in
the High-level Dialogue and interactive hearing. The Task Force helped support the
Office of the President of the General Assembly in matters relating to civil society’s
input and identified ten panelists, ten respondents and two moderators for the
interactive hearing, and provided key links to relevant civil society networks and
organizations globally.
6
High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society at http://www.un.org/ga/president/62/letters/summary141107.pdf.
251
5. The President of the General Assembly, H. E. Mr. Srgjan Kerim, opened the
interactive hearing which was held under the overarching theme “Interreligious and
Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace”. A statement was then read
on behalf of the High Representative of the Secretary-General for the Alliance of
Civilizations, Mr Jorge Sampaio. The first panel discussion focused on the theme of
“Challenges of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Today” and was
moderated by the Secretary-General of the World Conference of Religions for
Peace, Dr. William Vendley. The second panel discussion dealt with the theme of
“Best Practices and Strategies of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Going
Forward” and was moderated by the Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the
United Nations, H.E. Mr. Abdullah Ahmed Mohamed Al-Murad.
6. A summary of the key findings that emerged from the hearing was presented by
the President of the 62nd Session of the General Assembly at the closing plenary
meeting of the High-level Dialogue on 8 October. In his closing statement, the
President of the General Assembly congratulated all for the stimulating discussions
and thanked in particular the distinguished panelists and representatives from civil
society, faith groups, academia and the private sector for enriching the debate.
Commending the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect that was displayed during
the High-level dialogue as something the General Assembly can continually strive
to exemplify, the President underlined that sincere dialogue is an extraordinary tool
to promote inclusiveness. Encouraged by the large participation of Member States
in the interactive hearing, the President welcomed the interest of the General
Assembly to continue this meaningful interaction with civil society on this issue and
others.
II. Proceedings of the interactive hearing
1. GA Resolution 61/221 adopted on 20 December 2006, provides a good overview
of the necessity for increased interreligious and intercultural understanding and
cooperation for peace. It also acknowledges the importance of both freedom of
religion and belief, as well as respect for a diversity of religions and cultures.
2. The informal interactive hearing on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding
and Cooperation for Peace was the fifth hearing with civil society to be convened
by the General Assembly. As each hearing is a new learning process involving
different stakeholders and partners, to guarantee representativity and shared
ownership, the President of the General Assembly appointed a Civil Society ‘Task
Force’ to assist in the selection of participants and in identifying the sub-themes of
the hearing. Twenty speakers represented a variety of cultural (all continents) and
religious (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Jain, Baha’i) traditions. Thematically
and professionally, participants brought forward a diverse spectrum of viewpoints
and experiences, representing i.e. Religious institutions, UN program partners,
grassroots women’s organizations, indigenous peoples networks, mediation and
peace building groups and academic research centers.
3. The informal hearing was held in the afternoon of 4 October, following the
Opening Plenary of the High Level Dialogue with two implications: The holding of
the hearing during the High-level Dialogue enabled a high level of attendance of
Member States. As the time that could be allotted to the hearing as part of the two252
day Dialogue agenda was limited to one afternoon session of three hours, multiple
delegates who asked for the floor could not be accommodated in the set time frame.
4. There was a shared sense of appreciation and achievement, with regard to both
the relevance of the sub-themes and the diversity and representativity of the
participants from civil society, religious communities, academia and the private
sector. The discussion was very rich, bringing together a wide variety of
backgrounds, experiences, cultures, religions and views.
5. All speakers recognised that interfaith and intercultural understanding form the
bedrock of our well-being, stability and prosperity, and recommended practical
measures to advance interreligious and intercultural cooperation, including through
programmes for youth, education, media, and the promotion of rights of minorities
through innovative and inclusive dialogue.
First panel
6. The first panel discussion dealt with the ‘Challenges of Interreligious and
Intercultural Cooperation Today’, and opened with an analysis of how religion is
used to fuel conflicts, as well as recommendations for the steps that could be
undertaken to foster meaningful interreligious dialogue and respect. The first panel
also highlighted successful experiences at the grassroots.





The Representative of the L’auravetli’an Information and Education Network of
Indigenous Peoples of Russia described efforts to provide information and
education to twenty minority groups, and related to their advocacy work to
operationalize new legislation in the field and change education curricula to value
and foster indigenous culture and tradition.
The Representative of the Union Theological Seminary emphasized that before
religions can move to making positive contributions to peace building, they must
confront why it is that religion is such a ready tool to foster conflict and violence.
The Representative of the International Islamic Center for Population Studies and
Research at the Al Azhar University in Cairo illustrated how work in the field of
women’s health and reproductive rights has been furthered in the Islamic world over
the past 30 years.
The Representative of the Interfaith Mediation Centre of Nigeria stressed the power
of religion which can be used to raise the consciousness of humanity or manipulated
to foster violence and extremism, and recommended locally appropriate peace
building training for youth and other constituencies.
The Representative of the Anuvrat Global Organization underscored the role of
economic disparities and globalization in fuelling tensions and pointed to the positive
impact of non-violent approaches such as Ahimsa Yatra in India to create a positive
climate for dialogue.
7. The Respondent from the Foundation for a Culture of Peace noted the role of the
media and irresponsible leadership in perpetrating stereotypes that generate fear
and suspicion, thereby generating the perception of a “clash of civilizations”. The
Respondent from the Inter Press Service International Association cautioned the
role of the media in contributing to tensions by incomplete or inaccurate reporting.
The Respondent from the National Peace Council of the Philippines called on
leaders to promote interreligious and intercultural cooperation by honoring their
253
commitments to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, and by adhering to
the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
Respondent from the Women’s Ministries of the Latin American Council of Churches
recommended the use of Human Rights language to address the challenges of
religious traditions, notably in the context of gender equality and justice. The
Respondent from Infogest, Senegal demonstrated that the world of business
provides ample opportunities for peaceful, multicultural interaction and success.
8. During the interactive dialogue with Member States, Permanent Observers and
the UN System that followed, it was emphasized that understanding between
religions was not an end unto itself, but rather a step towards greater cohesion
among diverse communities. Participants were reminded that despite a willingness
to engage in forums such as these, in reality freedom of belief and religion is still
not guaranteed and protected in many countries. Recommendations included: i)
Encouraging support at the national level to render local action plans more
successful (as proven by the experience of the Philippines in developing and
introducing peace building classes in all school curricula); ii) Providing a role for
government and civil society to conduct “media policing work”; iii) Conducting
training in intercultural sensitivity, and placing members of a given religious or ethnic
community at the forefront of efforts to promote peace within that community; and
iv) Creating national interfaith networks to foster new experts in interfaith dialogue.
Second panel
9. The second panel discussion addressed the theme of “Best Practices and
Strategies of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Going Forward”. Panelists
shared their work on interfaith dialogue, conflict resolution, peace building, and
MDG policy development, and provided examples of successful practices for wider
application.





The Representative of the Islamic College for Advanced Studies/Religions of the
Sacred Heart described methods for achieving inner peace and freedom from fear,
in order to transform personal and social energies towards communion, noting,
“Peace is intelligence of the heart”.
The Representative of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding
underscored the success of their network of interfaith mediators in armed conflict
zones, whose high risk, discreet, and yet effective work can serve as a guide for
policymakers working with religious leaders in areas of armed conflict.
The Representatives of the Comunidad Teologica de Honduras highlighted the
importance of inclusive interreligious dialogue, such as those convened with
UNFPAs assistance in Central America on population planning and women’s health,
and noted that this dialogue model helped to build an active interreligious network
on a variety of issues, including environmental protection.
The Representative of the Baha’I International Community in Tanzania underscored
that the freedom to hold belief of one’s choosing and to change it, was an essential
attribute of the human conscience, and recommended concrete strategies to
overcome ignorance and fanaticism.
The Representative of Weyerhaeuser Company shared that the promotion of
diversity demands a mindset geared towards collaborative leadership and offered
254
the experience of private sector partnerships with civil society and NGOs in
developing countries as a model for effective collaboration.
10. The Respondent from the Centre for Women’s Studies and Intervention of
Nigeria underscored the global importance of addressing women’s equality, and
urged men, as custodians of religious traditions, to play an active role in women’s
empowerment. The Respondent from the UNESCO Chair in Interfaith Studies
posed the challenge of moving beyond either an exclusively secular education with
little knowledge about diverse religious traditions, or, on the other hand, a religious
education that advocates one religion above all others. The Respondent from the
Earth Charter emphasized the promotion of global ethics as a unifying strategy in
the midst of religious and cultural diversity, building on the UN Charter and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and offered the methodology of the Earth
Charter as a useful model in this regard. The Respondent from the Peace Boat,
Japan, urged all stakeholders to engage in open dialogue about wounds from the
past in order to create the conditions for genuine interreligious and intercultural
cooperation moving forward. The Respondent from Zenab for Women in
Development, Sudan, stressed the need for the international community to
implement the protection of religious minorities and support grassroots dialogue
initiatives, including the training of religious and community leaders in programmes
for reconciliation.
11. During the interactive dialogue with Member States, Permanent Observers, and
the UN System that followed, various delegations articulated proposals for action
including i) The establishment of a UN body with the specific mandate of heightening
the level of interfaith dialogue, and bringing together experts on interfaith dialogue;
ii) The reallocation by Member States of a portion of defense budgets, towards
interfaith dialogue initiatives designed to build peace; iii) Encouraging religious
communities to hold internal dialogues, in order to identify and engage the extreme
elements within one’s own religious tradition in support of peace; iv) The introduction
of mandatory interfaith education which would foster understanding of one’s own
religious traditions as well as that of others; v) Engaging the media to promote
understanding rather than stereotypes and prejudice. The momentum around
interreligious dialogue was noted by many participants, including the Holy See,
referring to the initiatives of the late Pope John Paul II, and of Pope Benedict XVI.
III. Key Findings
The following points highlight the findings and recommendations that emerged from
the hearing:
(a) Globalization has heightened the need for greater cooperation and
understanding among cultures, religions, and civilizations. Interreligious and
Intercultural Cooperation is a prerequisite for international peace and security.
(b) The UN must continue to play a central role in promoting the Culture of Peace,
human rights, human security and multi-stakeholder cooperation. To that end, the
UN should enhance its efforts to foster meaningful interreligious and intercultural
dialogue, including through a ‘Decade of Dialogue’, and by developing permanent
programmes or mechanisms specifically focusing on interreligious and intercultural
dialogue for peace.
255
(c) Non-state actors must be involved in this process. While Member States are the
UN’s building blocks, non-state actors are very active and influential partners for a
global alliance for peace, as they build bridges between communities. Partnerships
with people working at the grassroots are of key importance to the UN. The new
forms of cooperation that are emerging between the private sector and civil society
could also provide new models for best practices.
(d) Religious communities have a unique spiritual and moral authority and should
play a more prominent role in achieving international peace and developing a
common language for peace. Valuable lessons can be learned from the experience
gathered by interreligious organizations, humanists and other civil society groups in
this area for over a century.
(e) Indigenous and minority groups need to be included: While the adoption of the
Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
last September pays tribute to the inherent value of human diversity and to the
strength of the indigenous movement globally, mechanisms to protect minority
rights tend to be weak. Political will is necessary to ensure respect for the rights of
indigenous peoples and other groups, including migrant workers, to land, ethnic
diversity, and cultural and religious traditions. The inclusion of minority groups in
intercultural dialogue should be a priority.
(f) Examples of peaceful multicultural societies: There are many examples of
culturally and religiously diverse communities living in harmony for centuries.
Lessons can be learned from these experiences, including those at the local level,
as they provide important models to be applied in the current context of
globalization.
(g) Deadly conflict and freedom of religion: The failure to reach sustainable solutions
to conclude long-standing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa deeply affects
interreligious understanding and cooperation. While the UN has made great
progress in monitoring instances of religious repression, in many countries, freedom
of religion or belief continues to be violated and actions do not go beyond vague
recommendations calling on governments and religions to be more responsible and
self-critical.
(h) Religious extremism and inclusive dialogue: One of the key reasons why
religions are prone to violence is that some claim to be superior over others in
holding the highest of truths. Such claims tacitly allow perpetrators to use religion
for violent purposes, engaging hatred and mobilising constituencies. Solutions lie in
religions working together, acknowledging the extreme elements within their own
constituencies and adopting a self-critical approach towards teachings which may
incite discrimination and intolerance.
(i) Human rights: Inclusive dialogues cannot succeed if, in the interests of
“harmony”, there are taboos about addressing violations of fundamental freedoms.
Human Rights language and instruments have proven to be successful tools to
address contentious cultural and religious traditions.
(j) Freedom from want: One of the primary objectives of the United Nations’
collaboration with religious communities should be to relieve the suffering of people
256
living in poverty and achieve the timely implementation of the Millennium
Development Goals. The connection between human rights and poverty eradication
must be recognised in order to protect human dignity.
(k) Media: The prominent role of the media in generating perceptions of other
cultures and religions needs to be acknowledged in a world driven by
communications technology, where perception tends to override reality and facts. It
is important to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the
responsibility of the media to exercise judgment and respect in representing cultural
and religious communities.
(l) Education: Universal curricula on multiculturalism, interreligious cooperation and
peace building should be introduced in primary and secondary schools. Quality
education should focus on building cohesion and common understanding in society,
rather than promoting a specific religion. Successful grassroots peace building and
dialogue models require further study to develop innovative training approaches for
youth, i.e., The Andalusia model and the Peace Boat.
(m) Other recommendations: Among the objectives of a United Nations body
designed to promote interreligious and intercultural cooperation could be the
systematic collection and dissemination of successful grassroots dialogue and the
development of a code of conduct based on global ethics. The approach of the Earth
Charter provides an interesting example. Recognising that peaceful relations
among cultures and religions are an important security measure, governments
should be encouraged to allocate part of their defense budgets to interfaith dialogue
mechanisms.
257
258
Bibliography
Books
Abdul-Matin Ibrahim Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet
(Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco, 2010).
Albright Madeleine The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World
Affairs (Harper Perennial, New York, 2007).
Aldridge Alan Religion in the Contemporary World (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000).
Apter David E The Politics of Modernization (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965).
Arblaster Anthony The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
1984).
Bederman D J et al International Law in Antiquity (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2001).
Belshaw D, Calderesi R, and Sugden C (eds) Faith in Development: Partnership between
the World Bank and the Churches of Africa (Oxford: Regnum, Washington DC, 2002).
Benstein Jeremy The Way into Judaism and the Environment (Jewish Lights Publishing,
Vermont, 2006).
Biermann Frank, Siebenhuner Bernd and Schreyogg Anna (eds) International
Organizations in Global Environmental Governance (Routledge, Oxon, 2009).
Bob C The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2012).
Bosselmann Klaus and Engel J Ronald The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global
Governance (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010).
Brierly J L The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace 6th ed (H
Waldock (ed) 1963).
Bruce Steve (ed) Religion and Modernisation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992).
Carson Rachel Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, 1962).
Casanova Jose Public Religions in the Modern World (University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1994).
Cassese Antonio International Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005).
Dahl Lyon “Climate Change and its Ethical Challenges” The Baha’i World 2005-2006
(Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, 2007).
Durkheim Emile The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (6th edition) (Translated by
Joseph Ward Swain) (George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1968).
Earth Charter: Charting a Course for the Future United Nations Development
Programme, (World Bank, World Resources Institute, 2003).
Ehrlich Paul R “The Population Bomb” (Buccaneer Books, New York, 1968).
Falk Richard Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave, New York, 2001).
259
Foltz Richard Environmentalism in the Muslim World (Nova Science Publishers, Inc, USA,
2005).
Fox Jonathan and Sandler Shmuel Bringing Religion into International Relations
(Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004).
Gardner Gary Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development
(W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006).
Gardner Gary Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable
World,
WorldWatch Paper 164, (Worldwatch Institute, US, 2002).
Gatens Moira Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality (Polity
Press, Cambridge, 1991).
Geuss Raymond History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2001).
Gottlieb Roger S This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (Routledge, New
York, 2004).
Grim John & Tucker Mary Evelyn Ecology and Religion (Island Press, Washington DC,
2014).
Grotius Hugo The Law of War and Peace (1625).
Haynes J An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (2nd ed) (Pearson,
London, 2013a).
Haynes J Comparative Politics in a Globalising World (Polity, Cambridge, 2005).
Haynes J Religion and Development: Conflict or Cooperation? (Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke and New York, 2007).
Haynes Jeffrey Religion in Global Politics (Longman, London, 1998).
Haynes Jeff Religion in Third World Politics (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 1994).
Haynes Jeffrey Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics (Routledge, New York,
2008).
Holy Qur’an
Holy Bible
Hutchinson John A Paths of Faith (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1981).
James William The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC
Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008).
Juergensmeyer Mark The New Cold War? (University of California, Berkeley, 1993).
Küng Hans (ed.) Yes to a Global Ethic, Voices from Religion and Politics (Continuum,
New York, 1996).
Kristeva Julia “Word, Dialogue and Novel in The Kristeva Reader, edited by Toril Moi
(Columbia University Press, New York, 1986).
Little Richard and Smith Steve (eds) Belief Systems and International Relations
(Blackwell, Oxford, 1988).
260
Madan T N “Hinduism” in Global Religions: An Introduction, edited by Mark
Juergensmeyer (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
Marshall Katherine Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers
(Routledge, Oxon, 2013).
Mills C Wright The Sociological Imagination (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1959).
Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford,
1987).
Najam Adil, Papa Mihaela, and Taiyab Nadaa Global Environmental Governance: A
Reform Agenda (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, 2006).
Nasr Seyyed Hossein Islam and the Plight of Modern Man (Longman Group, London,
1975).
Palmer Martin with Finlay Victoria Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the
Environment (The World Bank, Washington DC, 2003).
Preston Noel Understanding Ethics (3rd ed) (The Federation Press, NSW, 2007).
Rowland Wade The Plot to Save the World: the Life and Times of the Stockholm Conference on
the Human Environment (Clarke, Irwin & Co, Toronto, 1973).
Ryding Sven-Olof Environmental Management Handbook: The Holistic Approach – From
Problems to Strategies (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998).
Sahliyeh Emile (ed) Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State
University of New York Press, New York, 1990).
Sandell Klas (ed) Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis (Sri Lanka Buddhist Publications
Society, Kandy, 1987).
Sands Philippe Principles of International Environmental Law: Frameworks, Standards and
Implementation (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1995).
Scott Peter Tree of Life: Buddhism and Protection of Nature (Buddhist Perception of Nature,
Hong Kong, 1987).
Shah Timothy Samuel Faith on Fire: the Global Explosion of Political Religion (Hoover Institute
Press, Stanford, 2011).
Shaw M N International Law 5th ed (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).
Singer Fred S Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970).
Singer Peter The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (Princeton University
Press, Oxford, 2011).
Singer Peter Practical Ethics (3rd Ed) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011).
Smith Christian The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularisation of
American Public Life (University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003).
Smith Donald E “Religion and Political Modernization: Comparative Perspectives” in Religion
and Political Modernization, edited by Donald E Smith (Yale University Press, New Haven,
1974).
Speth James G and Haas Peter M Global Environmental Governance, (Island Press,
Washington DC, 2006).
261
Stark Rodney and Bainbridge William the Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult
Formation (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985).
Thomas S The Global Transformation of Religion and the Transformation of International
Relations. The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-First Century (Palgrave Macmillan, New
York/Basingstoke, UK, 2005).
Tucker Mary Evelyn Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Carus Publishing
Company, Illinois, 2003).
Walzer Michael Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism (Yale University
Press, New Haven, 2004).
Watling Tony Ecological Imaginations in the World Religions: An Ethnographic Analysis
(Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2009).
Weart S R The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition (Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 2008).
Weber Max The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Scribner, New York, 1930).
Weber Max Sociology of Religion (Beacon Press, Boston, 1993) [1922].
Weeramantry C G Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion the Environment and the Human Future
(Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009).
Weeramantry Christopher G Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective (St Martins
Press, New York, 1988).
Weiss Thomas G Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it (2nd ed) (Polity Press,
Cambridge, 2012).
Wheaton H Elements of International Law: With a Sketch of the History of the Science (Carey,
Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia, 1836).
Book Chapters
Amery Hussein A. “Rights of the Environment” in Water Management in Islam Faruqui Naser I,
Biswas Asit K and Bino Murad J (eds) (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2001).
Amin Adnan "UNEP - Reform Perspectives Two Years after Johannesburg," and Töpfer Klaus,
"A Strengthened International Environmental Institution," in UNEO - Towards an International
Environmental Organization Rechkemmer A (ed) (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft,
2005).
Arnal William E in Guide to the Study of Religion (Part 1 Definition) Willi Braun and Russell T
McCutcheon (eds) (T & T Clark, New York, 2000).
Beversluis Joel “The Parliaments and the Quest for a Global Ethic” in Sourcebook of the World’s
Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality, Joel Beversluis (ed) (New World
Library, California, 2000).
Gottlieb Roger S “Religion and the Environment” in John Hinnells (ed) Routledge Companion to
the Study of Religion 2nd ed (Routledge, London, 2010).
Foltz Richard “Introduction” Islam and Ecology Richard Foltz, Frederick Denny & Azizan
Baharuddin (eds) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003).
Kerber Guillermo “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are
Responding to Climate Change: Social scientific investigations Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew
Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay (eds) (Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 278.
262
Khalid Fazlun M “Islam and the Environment” Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change
(John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, 2002).
Lapid Yosef “Culture’s Ship: Returns and Departures in International Relations Theory” in The
Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (eds) (Lynne
Rienner, Boulder, 1996).
Nafziger James A R “The Functions of Religion in the International Legal System” in Religion
and International Law Janis Mark W and Evans Carolyn (eds) (Kluwer Law International, The
Netherlands, 1999).
Rubin Barry “Religion and International Affairs” in Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft
Johnston Douglas and Sampson Cynthia (eds) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994).
Shupe Anson “The Stubborn Persistence of Religion in the Global Arena” in Religious
Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World Emile Sahliyeh (ed) (State University of
New York Press, New York, 1990).
Singer Peter “Ethics” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1985).
Speth James G "A Memorandum in Favor of a World Environment Organization," in UNEO Towards an International Environment Organization, A Rechkemmer (ed) (Baden-Baden: Nomos
Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005).
Stueckelberger Christoph “Who Dies First? Who is Sacrificed First? Ethical Aspects of Climate
Justice” in God, Creation and Climate Change: Spiritual and Ethical Perspectives (Lutheran
University Press, Minneapolis, 2009).
Tucker Mary Evelyn and Grim John “Series Foreword” in Hinduism and Ecology Christopher Key
Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2000).
Watling Tony “The Field of Religion and Ecology: Addressing the Environmental Crisis and
Challenging Faiths” in Religion: Beyond a Concept H de Vries (ed) (Fordham Press, New York,
2008).
Wendt Alexander “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics” in The Return of
Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (eds) (Lynne Rienner,
Boulder, 1996).
Journals
Agrawala Shardul “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39: 605-620.
Berdal Mats “The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable” Survival Vol 45, #2,
Summer 2003, p 7.
Bloch Jon P A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of
the World Religions in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, 2008.
Boehle Josef “The UN System and Religious Actors in the Context of Global Change”
CrossCurrents, Volume 60, Issue 3, 9 Sep 2010: 391-392.
Fox Jonathon “Do Religious Institutions Support Violence or the Status Quo?” (1999) Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism 22(2), 119-139.
Galarza Adrian Villasenor “Holistic Worldview: Towards an Integral Understanding of the
Personal and the Scientific” Ludis Vitalis, vol XVI, num 30, 2008, pp 197-203.
Gray Mark Allan “The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment” 20
Environmental Law (1990) 292.
263
Gupta Joyeeta “A History of International Climate Change Policy” WIREs Climatic Change 2010
1 636-653.
Hadden Jeffrey K “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory” (1987b) Social Forces, 65(3)
597.
Harris Fredrick C “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political
Activism” (1994) Journal of Politics 56(1), 42-68.
Harris Paul G “Misplaced Ethics of Climate Change: Political vs. Environmental Geography”
Ethics, Place and Environment Vol 13 No 2 June 2010, 215-222.
Helmsinki Kabir “The Dialog of Civilisations and the Globalisation of Spirit” The Threshold
Society as quoted by Ethan Goffman “God, Humanity and Nature: Comparative Religious Views
of the Environment” (Review article) ProQuest
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/envrel/review.php#n6.
Iannaccone Laurence R “Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational Choice Approach to
Religion” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34 (1), 1995a,b.
Jager Jill “From Conference to Conference” Climatic Change (1992) Vol 20, No 2, iii-vii.
Janis Mark Weston “Religion and International Law” (2002) ASIL Insights at
http://www.asil.org/insigh93.cfm.
Johnston Hank and Figa Jozef “The Church and Political Opposition: Comparative Perspectives
on Mobilization against Authoritarian Regimes” (1988) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
27(1), 32-47.
Jones Merrill E “Origins of the East German Environmental Movement” German Studies Review,
Vol 16, No 2 (May, 1993) 236.
Kellogg William W “Mankind’s Impact on Climate: The Evolution of an Awareness” Climatic
Change 10 (1987) 123.
Kovar Jeffrey D “A Short Guide to the Rio Declaration” 4 Colo J Intl Envtl L & Poly 119 (1993).
Lohmann Susanne “The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in
Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-91” World Politics 47 (October 1994) 42.
McDuie-Ra Duncan and Rees John A “Religious Actors, Civil Society and the Development
Agenda: the Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion” (2008) Arts Papers and Journal Articles
University of Notre Dame Australia, p 2.
Northcott M S “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of
Climate Change” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 296.
O’Hara Dennis Patrick and Abelsohn Alan “Ethical Response to Climate Change” in Ethics and
the Environment Vol 16, No 1, Spring 2011.
Petrovsky Vladimir “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and
Constraints” International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 49.
Philpott Daniel in “The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations”
(2002) 55 (1) World Politics 69.
Philpott Daniel “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci
188.
Posas Paula J “Roles of Religion and Ethics in Addressing Climate Change” ESEP 2007: 31-49.
264
Reisinger Andy and Larsen Howard “Recognising Ethics to Help a Constructive Climate Change
Debate” in Public Policy: Why Ethics Matter Jonathan Boston, Andrew Bradstock, and David Eng
(eds) (ANU E-Press, Canberra, 2010) 117.
Sagan Carl “Preserving and Cherishing the Earth – An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science
and Religion” Am J Phys 58:615-617.
Schindler David W “The Mysterious Missing Sink” (1999) Nature 398:105-106
Sherkat Daren E and Ellison Christopher G “Recent Development and Controversies in the
Sociology of Religion” (1999) Annual Review of Sociology 25, 364.
Stahel Dr Albert Alexander “The Geopolitical situation of Europe” in Global Gold Outlook No. 7,
September 2014.
Stumpf C A “Christian and Islamic Traditions of Public International Law” (2005) 7 Journal of the
History of International Law 69.
Thakur Ramesh and Weiss Thomas G “United Nations “Policy”: An Argument with Three
Illustrations” International Studies Perspectives (2009).
Thomas Scott M “Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of
Religion and the Transformation of International Society” (2000) Millennium 29 (3), 817–819.
Tucker Mary Evelyn and Grim John A “Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions
and Ecology” in Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change? Daedalus, Journal of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 2001, p 11.
Tucker Mary Evelyn and Grim John “The Greening of the World’s Religions” The Chronical
Review, Feb 9, 2007.
Verba Sidney, Scholzman Kay L, Bradey Henry and Nie Norman H “Race, Ethnicity, and Political
Resources: Participation in the United States” (1993) British Journal of Political Science 23(4),
453-497.
Vogel David “How Green is Judaism? Exploring Jewish Environmental Ethics Business Ethics
Quarterly Vol 11, No 2 (Apr 2001) 350.
Warner R Stephen “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of
Religion in the United States” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (5), March 1993, 1044–1093.
White Lynn Townsend, Jr. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis” 1967, Science, Vol 155,
No. 3767.
Wilson Erin K “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice”
(2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 733-754.
Wood Jr Harold W “The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The developing Nations’
Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment” 12 Ecology L.Q. (1884-1985) 990.
Projects, Papers, Reports and Theses
Ahmad Imran Habib “Climate Policy Integration: Towards Operationalization” DESA Working
Paper No. 73, March 2009
Ahmad Mahood “Religious Resurgence in an Era of Globalisation: Islam’s Quest for Global
Participation” (2005) Futuristic Forum: A Policy Research Organisation Paper at
http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html.
Appleby R. Scott and Cizik Richard (co-chairs) Report of the Task Force on Religion and the
Making of U.S. Foreign Policy Sponsored by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago,
2010.
265
Baderin Mashood A “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?” in SOAS School of Law
Legal Studies Research Paper Series: Research Paper No 4/2010 Reprinted from European
Human Rights Law Review, Issue 5 (2009) (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2009).
Black Patricia Marlette The New is Elsewhere: Women’s Leadership in Community-Profit
Organisations Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 1999, p 25.
Bodansky Daniel “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change
Regime” Working Paper Series Social Science Research Network. Available online at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865.
Bodansky Daniel “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center
on Global Climate Change Paper, April 2009:5.
Bodansky Daniel “The International Climate Change Regime: The Road from Copenhagen”
Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements October 2010 at
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/climate.
“The Bhumi Project: Respect, Compassion and Service for our Environment” The Oxford Centre
for Hindu Studies, University of Oxford,
http://www.bhumiproject.org/downloads/TheBhumiProject.pdf.
Carrette J and Miall H “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN”
Briefing Paper, 2012.
Crossing the Divide: Dialogue among Civilizations Report of the “Group of Eminent Persons” for
the U.N. Dialogue among Civilization (School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton
Hall University, 2001).
“The Earth Charter and Religion” Statements on Controversial Issues (Earth Charter
International, 2008). Found online at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/The%20Earth%20Charter%20and%2
0Religion.pdf.
El-Ashry Mohamed "Mainstreaming the Environment--Coherence among International
Governance Systems," Paper read at the International Environmental Governance Conference,
Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations, Paris, 2004
The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change” Report by the World Commission on the
Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) (UNESCO, France, 2010) 19.
Goeckel Robert “The Evangelical-Lutheran Church and the East German Revolution” Research
Paper available online at
http://www.georgefox.edu/.../Goeckel_Evangelical_articles_previous.pdf.
Handschin Carolyn “Considering an Interreligious Council at the UN” October 4, 2010, UPF-UN
Office in Geneva at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Handschin/Handschin101004.htm.
Haynes Jeffrey “Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations” EUI Working Paper RSCAS
2013/70, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies,
RELIGIOWEST, 2013.
High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding
and Cooperation for Peace - Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society at
http://www.un.org/ga/president/62/letters/summary141107.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 Summary for Policymakers;
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. (See also the main IPCC website,
www.ipcc.ch.)
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf.
266
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf.
Ivanova Maria “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf.
Jaeger Hans-Martin “Considering the Proposal for an Interreligious Council” May 7, 2009,
Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Canada at
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks1/Jaeger/Jaeger-090507.htm.
James Rick “What is Distinctive about FBOs?” INTRAC Praxis Paper no. 22 (2009) p 5.
Mackey Brendan “Climate Change, Ethics and the Earth Charter” Paper presented at the Earth
Charter +10 event, Mexico 2010.
McKenzie Stephen J Comparative Futures: Notes on a Methodology for the Study of
Sustainability, Religion and Global Ethics (Australian Association for Professional and Applied
Ethics 12th Annual Conference, 28-30 September 2005, Adelaide) at
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/gig/aapae05/documents/mckenzie.pdf.
Meadowcroft James “Climate Change Governance” Background Paper to the 2010 World
Development Report, May 2009, 4.
Narayan Deepa et al Voices of the Poor (World Bank, Washington DC, 2000).
Navarro Carlos “Cancun Summit on Global Climate Change a Success or Failure, Depending on
Whom You Ask” (Notien, The University of New Mexico, January 2011) at
http://hdl.handle.net/1928/11918.
Petersen Marie Juul, “International Religious NGOs at the United Nations: A Study Group of
Religious Organizations” Journal of Humanitarian Assistance (November 2010) at
sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847#_ednref51.
Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002.
United Nations General Assembly Debate” UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service at
http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UNreform.htm.
Vilela Mirian and Corcoran Peter Blaze Building Consensus on Shared Values from The Earth
Charter in Action Website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENGVilela.pdf.
“White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change” Rock Ethics Institute (Paper can be
found at http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate).
World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty (Oxford University Press, USA, 2000.
Websites
Adherents.com website <http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html; population
data from US Census Bureau, International Data Base, www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html>.
Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at
http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=51.
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Alliance of Religions and Conservation – History”
available online at http://www.arcworld.org/about.asp?pageID=2.
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “ARC-UN Long Term Commitments for a Living Planet”
available online at http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=47.
267
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “List of Faith Commitments Including 7 Year Plans”
available online at http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=497.
Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Uppsala Manifesto Promises Faith Action on Climate
Issues” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=283.
Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies website at http://ausable.org/about/.
Belopopsky Alexander “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of America website at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051.
The Bhumi Project at http://bhumiproject.org/
Brown Donald A “Ten Reasons Why Examining Climate Change Policy Controversies through
an Ethical Lens is a Practical Imperative” Climate Ethics Website
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/.
Brundtland Gro Harlem “Rio+20 didn’t go far enough” The Elders: Independent global leaders
working together for peace and human rights website at http://www.theelders.org/dialogue/rio20didnt-go-far-enough-what-now
Chapple Christopher Key “Hindusm, Jainism, and Ecology” at
http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/hinduism/.
Chrysopigi Monastry, Chania, Crete at http://www.cretanbeaches.com/Monasteries/ChaniaMonasteries/chrysopigi-monastery-near-chania/.
Church of England “Carbon Pledges at Lambeth Interfaith Forum” March 2011, available online
at http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2011/03/carbon-pledges-at-lambethinterfaith-forum.aspx.
Climate Change 101 Overview Pew Center on Global Climate Change at
<http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101/overview>.
Diaz Diana “The Security Council at an Impasse” Global Politics. Found online at
http://www.global-politics.co.uk/Archive/Security%20Council%20Impasse.htm.
The Earth Charter Initiative at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/faq.html#4.
The Earth Charter Initiative: Religion and Spirituality at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/categories/Religion%20and%20Spirituality/.
Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at
<http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html >.
Forum on Religion and Ecology “Islam Engaged Projects – Islamic Foundation for Ecology and
Environmental Sciences (IFEES) at
http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/projects/islamic_foundation.html.
Global Ethic Foundation for Inter-cultural and Inter-religious Research, Education and Encounter
website at http://www.weltethos.org/index-en.php.
GreenFaith: Interfaith Partners for the Environment available online at http://greenfaith.org/.
Hallman David G Climate Justice – the Role of Religion in Addressing Climate Change World
Climate Change Conference 2003, Moscow, Russian Federation, September 29 to October 3,
2003 at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakoniaand-responsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/world-climate-change-conference.html.
Halpert Julie “Judaism and Climate Change” The Yale Forum on Clmate Change and the Media
at http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/judaism-and-climate-change/.
268
Hick John Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic: Towards a Universal Declaration of a Global
Ethic – A Christian Comment Centre for Global Ethics (CGE) Website at
<http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/hick.htm>.
Hope Marjorie and Young James “Islam and Ecology” at
http://www.crosscurrents.org/islamecology.htm.
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) website available online at
http://www.iccr.org/The International Interfaith Investment Group (3iG) website available online
at http://www.3ignet.org/about/index.html.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website at
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml#.Upf6OMTI2So.
Ivanova Maria “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at
www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf
Jewish Climate Initiative at http://www.jewishclimateinitiative.org/home/
Murray James and Shankleman Jessica “COP 19: Warsaw Climate Deal Finalised as Deadlock
Broken” BusinessGreen: Sustainable Thinking at
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2308878/cop-19-warsaw-climate-deal-finalised-asdeadlock-broken.
Muslim Green Team website at http://muslimgreenteam.org/about.
The New World Religion – Part VII the Interfaith Agenda at
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/new-age/NA1W1299.pdf.
Nuttall Nick United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Climate Talks End
with Hope for a New More Comprehensive Legally-binding Agreement”, Sunday December 11,
2011 at
<http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2661&ArticleID=8984&l=en>
Nutall Nick United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Inclusive Green
economy Given Go Ahead by Heads of State at Rio+20”, Friday June 22, 2012. At
<http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2688&ArticleID=9195&l=en>.
Rabbi Julian Sinclair Sally Bingham’s “Love God, Heal Earth”: A Review Jewish Climate
Initiative, June, 2009 available online at http://climateofchange.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/sallybinghams-love-god-heal-the-earth-a-review-by-rabbi-julian-sinclair/ .
The Regeneration Project at http://www.theregenerationproject.org.
Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) at http://www.rsesymposia.org.
Resources on Faith, Ethics, and Public Life “Association of Buddhists for the Environment” at
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/organizations/association-of-buddhists-for-theenvironment.
Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development website at
<http://www.uncsd2012.org/about.html>.
Sisters of the Humility of Mary website at http://www.humilityofmary.org/villa-farm.html.
Suslov Dmitry “Can American exceptionalism adjust to a multipolar world? Russia Direct Found
online at http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/can-american-exceptionalism-adjust-multipolarworld.
Sustainable Development Timeline at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf.
269
“Thai Ecology Monks” The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale at
http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/buddhism/projects/thai_ecology/.
Tziarras Zenonas “The Iraq Crisis and Its Geopolitical Implications” E-International Relations.
Found online at http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/29/the-iraq-crisis-and-its-geopolitical-implications/.
UNEP GRID Arendal: Environmental Knowledge for Change at
www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2684.aspx.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php.
United Nations Environment Programme “Global Peace Initiative of Women Convenes
Environmental Conference in Kenya” at UNEP website:
http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2676&ArticleID=9061.
United Nations Security Council website. Found online at http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/.
“What is a Global Ethic?” Available online at http://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0a_was-istweltethos/0a-00-einleitung/0a-00-was-ist-weltethos.php.
Woo Courtney (quoting Ken Wilson) Religion Rejuvenates Environmentalism, The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, June 2009 at
http://unc.news21.com/index.php/stories/rel.html.
World Council of Churches “Care for Creation: Climate Justice Now” available online at
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/events-sections/countdown-to-climate-justice.html.
World Council of Churches “The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual
Leaders” at http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd36-12.html.
World Council of Churches “What is the World Council of Churches?” available online at
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/who-are-we.html.
World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about.
World Wildlife Fund “Tibetan Monasteries at Work for the Environment” at
http://worldwildlife.org/stories/tibetan-monasteries-at-work-for-the-environment.
Declarations and Statements
Alliance of Religions and Conservation Seven Year Plan leaflet at
<http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/ARC%20UNDP%20Seven%20Year%20Plan%20leaflet.pdf
The Assisi Declarations at
http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/THE%20ASSISI%20DECLARATIONS.pdf.
Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change ((For the complete text
of this declaration refer http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/documents/declaration.pdf).
“Christian Faith Statement” Faiths & Ecology, ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation
website at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=69.
Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/.
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503&l=en.
The Earth Charter Initiative at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-theCharter.html.
270
The Earth Charter Task Force on Religion, Spirituality, and Ethics: Plan of Action at
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/attachments/12/PoA_EC_TF_Rel%20%282%29.pdf.
Ecodharma Centre: Radical Ecology Radical Dharma “Buddhism and Ecology at
http://www.ecodharma.com/influences-articles/buddhism-ecology.
The Evangelical Climate Initiative at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/.
The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” at
http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/union/.
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/pdf_downloads/hindu-climate-change-declaration.pdf.
Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change at http://www.interfaithdeclaration.org/.
Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration at
http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf.
United Nations “World Charter for Nature” at
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm.
Whitney Lynn and Ellie “Faith Based Statements on Climate Change”, June 2012 at
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/Faith%20Based%20Statements%20PDF%20for%20p
rinting.pdf.
Union of Concerned Scientists - World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity (UCS, Cambridge, MA,
1992).
World Council of Churches “Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action” at
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-andresponsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/religious-traditions-call-to-climateaction?set_language=en.
World’s Major Religions Present Action Plans on Environment (Baha’i World News Service)
Baha’i website available online at http://news.bahai.org/story/736 .
Conventions and Charters
Charter of the United Nations, Chapter V: The Security Council, Voting, Article 27.
Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online at
http://www.cbd.int/convention/about.shtml.
Kyoto Protocol. Available online at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Full Text of the Convention at
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php.
Lectures and Speeches
Appleby Scott “Is Spiritual Wisdom Religion’s Contribution to Global Politics?” Presentation at
the 50th Anniversary ISA Convention, “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future,” New York
City, Feb 15-18, 2009.
Baderin Mashood A “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes” Inaugural lecture
delivered by the author at the School of Law, SOAS, University of London on February 18, 2009.
Hallman David G Climate Justice – the Role of Religion in Addressing Climate Change World
Climate Change Conference 2003, Moscow, Russian Federation, September 29 to October 3,
2003 available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wccprogrammes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/world-climatechange-conference.html.
271
Marshall Katherine “Faith and Development: Rethinking Development Debates” speech,
Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, The World Bank, June, 2005 at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/PARTNERS/EXTDEVDIALOGUE
/0,,contentMDK:20478626~menuPK:64192472~pagePK:64192523~piPK:64192458~theSitePK:
537298,00.html.
Marshall Katherine “Religion and International Development” Interview with Pew Research:
Religion and Public Life Project, March 6, 2006, Washington D.C. at
http://www.pewforum.org/2006/03/06/religion-and-international-development/.
Williams Rowan ‘Internationalism and Beyond’ (speech given on June 18, 2004, Greenwich,
CT). See archives:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1204.
Encyclicals and Messages
Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the Bishops Priests
and Deacons Men and Women Religious the Lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on Integral
Human Development in Charity and Truth at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_benxvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html.
Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1
January 1990 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html.
Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1
January 1999 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html.
Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1
January 2008 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_benxvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html.
Pope John Paul II General Audience (para 4) 17 January 2001 at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jpii_aud_20010117_en.html.
Pope John Paul VI “Octogesima Adveniens” at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_pvi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html
Rerum Novarum Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerumnovarum_en.html.
Fact Sheets
The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html.
The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/envirp2.html.
Newspapers and Magazines
“COEJL: Protecting Creation, Generation to Generation” at http://coejl.org/.
Pankaj Jain “10 Hindu Environmental Teachings” Religion, Huffington Post at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-jain-phd/10-hindu-environmental-te_b_846245.html.
272
Dallo Joes, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Receives White House Launch” ISKCON News at
http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-0802/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch.
Eco Islam magazine, June 2011, Issue no.08 found at http://www.ifees.org.uk.
Heneghan Tom “Some East German Protestants Feel Overlooked as Wall Recalled” FaithWorld:
Religion, Faith and Ethics at http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/06/some-east-germanprotestants-feel-overlooked-as-wall-recalled/.
Howard Brian Clark “Rio+20 Brings Hope and Solutions despite Weak Talks” (June 21, 2012) on
National Geographic Daily News website at
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120621-rio-20-hope-solutions-official-talks/>
Hunt Julian and Chan Johnny “Doha Climate Talks are Over – Now to Pick up the Pieces” (Dec
10, 2012) The National website at <
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/doha-climate-talks-are-over-now-topick-up-the-pieces>.
Kim Grace Ji-Sun “Advocacy and Action on Climate Change: The World Council of Churches”
Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gracejisun-kim/climate-change-advocacy_b_5344044.html.
One Country: The Online Newsletter of the Baha’i International Community Volume 19, Issue 2,
January-March 2008.
Patel Gopal, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Recieves White House Launch” ISKCON News at
http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-0802/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch.
Press Releases
Kenney Peter “World Council of Churches says it will not invest in fossil fuels” Ecumenical News
available online at http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/world-council-of-churches-says-it-willnot-invest-in-fossil-fuels-25685.
Lehr Donald Facing Environmental Crisis, Forum on Religion and Ecology Seeks Transformation
Through Language and Action 10th Anniversary Press Release (November 12, 2008) at
http://google.yale.edu/search?site=Forum_Religion&q=Harold+Attridge&sort=date%3AD%3AL%
3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&proxyreload=1&client=bluesite_frontend&proxystylesheet=bluesite_frontend&submit=search.
Peace for Life Secretariat “Philippines: Church people, environmental groups call for ecological
wholeness amid environmental crisis” news report at
http://www.peaceforlife.org/news/local/2009/09-0825-ncejed.html.
United Nations Climate Change Secretariat Press Release at
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/131123_p
r_closing_cop19.pdf.
Valente Marcela “Pope Francis Raises Hope for an Ecological Church” Inter Press Service News
Agency (IPS) at http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/pope-francis-raises-hopes-for-an-ecologicalchurch/.
Willey David Pope Benedict XVI lambasts Copenhagen failure. 11 January 2010. BBC News
website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8452447.stm.
World Council of Churches Press Centre News, “To save the earth, all must change their ways,
says Ecumenical Patriarch”. Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/presscentre/news/to-save-the-earth-all-must-change-their-ways-says-ecumenical-patriarch.
273
Interviews
Lomas Charlotta “Religious communities are concerned about the climate” Interview with
Guillermo Kerber of WCC. Available online at http://www.dw.de/religious-communities-areconcerned-about-the-climate/a-17966092.
274