By Patricia Lee Sharpe
Copenhagen this month has been the scene of an all too familiar drama, a clash between elites in the meeting hall and activists in the street. Often the substance of such dramas has to do with international trade. In this case, it’s global warming—how to slow it down and put off the awful day when the rivers run dry and the oceans take over. Even if meaningful measures can be agreed on in Copenhagen, the likelihood that enough people will be willing to make the costly changes in lifestyle that might actually decelerate the global warming trend is fairly slim. The preferred course of action is already evident. Find any and every excuse to shove the sacrifice onto designated culprits.
Over the years, in fact, even in America, there have been many efforts to jump start a lifestyle with a lighter footprint on the planet. Often they combine ecological science with plain old nature loving and/or various sorts of philosophy/religion/spiritualism. They gain some ardent devotees, but they generally get diluted or subverted by the dominant culture, which is aggressively materialistic. Gaia is one such route. Buddhism is another.I can’t say I’ve read the short, medium long and miscellaneous sutras from beginning to end, but it’s pretty clear that the absolutely most basic Buddhist idea is to make yourself less miserable by hanging on to less—and by getting a good grip on why you cling to anything or anyone at all, especially since nothing will last. Nothing. Well, maybe diamonds really are forever. But that’ll be pretty cold comfort when global warming’s done its damage. Meanwhile, nothing that matters—like life, like love—comes with a money back guarantee either.
A related philosophy has to do with taking care of the terrestrial organism by emphasizing sustainability: use less, don’t pollute, recycle what you must use. It’s based on James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis which posits a homeostatic biosphere, but Gaia is more popular as an earth goddess who will take care of us if we take care of her.
What’s interesting here is that each of these anti-consumerist world views has been more or less coopted by the consumer society. If you go to the website for Dharmacrafts, for example, you’ll find the necessary basic meditation pillows and benches or simple Tibetan malas (rosaries) for sale. But you’ll also find jewelry and furniture and endless decorative items made dharmic by om or shanti inscriptions or lotus designs or dancing Taras, etc., etc., etc., an incredible proliferation of dharma kitsch. Buy! Buy! Buy! How to resist? The same trajectory marks the course of the Gaiam catalogue, which now features a wooden sculpture lamp and a mango bark vase and a hand espresso machine as well as organic linens, biodegradable cleaning products and low energy light bulbs. Want eco chic in bamboo and spandex? Want matching non-toxic nail polish? Order now—and buy a digital zen alarm clock, too! No doubt this very appealing, ever- expanding catalogue is good for the economy. I’m not so sure it’s all that good for the planet.
Now the world has come together in Copenhagen, ostensibly for the good of the planet and for the good of people under the threat from the consequences of global warming. Unfortunately I find it hard to be sanguine about the potential for rigorous implementation of any agreements initialed there. Costs aside, and they are considerable, old habits in the developed world are clearly going to be very hard to break. So far the United States is far from a domestic consensus on the need for immediate action to mitigate human-induced climate change. That being the case, it’s going to be even harder to persuade Congress to allocate millions to rescue the developing nations whose inhabitants will suffer as much, if not more, from what the developed world has already done to the biosphere.
Now the world has come together in Copenhagen, ostensibly for the good of the planet and for the good of people under the threat from the consequences of global warming. Unfortunately I find it hard to be sanguine about the potential for rigorous implementation of any agreements initialed there. Costs aside, and they are considerable, old habits in the developed world are clearly going to be very hard to break. So far the United States is far from a domestic consensus on the need for immediate action to mitigate human-induced climate change. That being the case, it’s going to be even harder to persuade Congress to allocate millions to rescue the developing nations whose inhabitants will suffer as much, if not more, from what the developed world has already done to the biosphere.