In an article on the National Observer website, Zain Haq argues that since the climate movement is virtually nonexistent at this moment, for it has been gobbled up by shifting political priorities and whims, it is of the utmost importance that we refocus. What are your views?
Climate change doesn’t care about our ideologies — they have no place in the fight against it
The 1,000 and counting killed in Pakistan and India this monsoon season had no voice, no say and no last wish — except in death, as a statistic. I saw almost no story or post by a climate advocacy group about these deaths. These people had little to no voice in their own land, nor did they help appoint governments in the US, Canada, Europe or China. And yet, they are subjected to the consequences of the decisions made by all governments, domestic and foreign.
Ever since my deportation from Canada for my nonviolent climate activism, I have traveled to parts of the Punjab and my home province in Sindh, and witnessed the testimony of those who have been left to the wrath of nature to fend for themselves. “They should simply drop the atomic bomb on us,” said one farmer in Sindh for a story I was doing.
He is no longer able to farm because of sea water encroachment on a once-fertile delta of the great Indus Valley Civilization. When on our way between our lecture hall or place of work and Tim Hortons, we should reflect on our responsibilities to these people for a few seconds before getting on with the day.
Fairness
The supreme slogan of the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation.” Centered around common sense and fairness, it had a universal appeal. A people should not be made to bear the brunt of decisions made by bodies that are not accountable to them and have not been chosen by them. This fair principle was established in the 1700s and, over 250 years later, it still hasn’t been extended to all territories and peoples. The foundation of the civil rights movement was to be included in that promise of the American Revolution, such was the universal appeal of the promise, despite its practical shortcomings.
We must re-focus on what’s real by asking rational, apolitical questions: At what point is the poisoning of our habitat going to be acknowledged as criminal negligence? Not by any one government, but by all people, to varying degrees. The law, in most countries, defines ‘criminal negligence’ as failing to engage in a duty of care that could have prevented harm.
For example, if I ignite a campfire in a high-risk area during wildfire season, I am arguably engaging in criminal negligence that could cause harm, to the point of death. I would not be intentionally wanting to cause harm, but by neglecting my duty of care, death or injury could be the inevitable result.
What, then, is the climate crisis? It is nothing more than the geological consequence of moral corruption, manifested as criminal negligence. The term “climate crisis” serves as an abstraction — a subduing force — to absolve oneself of moral responsibility. The climate crisis is not real, what is real is a moral crisis that has made the climate crisis inevitable. It would be more accurate to call it “Habitat Destruction”, for that’s what led to the crisis.
All of our governments have a duty of care to their citizens, and at the moment this duty is being neglected. We have already crossed 1.5 degrees, which was agreed in the Paris Climate Agreement as the threshold. Seth Klein points out that during the Second World War, Canada created over two dozen Crown corporations to deal with a true emergency: the threat of a Nazi-dominated world order. We know governments are capable of bold action in service of truth.
Stop worrying about the next election
Since the climate movement is virtually nonexistent at this moment, for it has been gobbled up by shifting political priorities and whims, it is of the utmost importance that we refocus. We must remind ourselves of a time when we, as individuals, were more consciously worried about the climate crisis itself and were losing sleep over it — before we developed complex jargon and ideologies around it, to funnel and smuggle our perspectives. Here are just a few examples of this ever expanding political jargon:
“Climate Justice = Social Justice”, “There Is No Climate Justice Without Racial Justice”, “System Change, Not Climate Change”, “People & Planet Over Profit”, “Workers’ Rights Are Climate Rights”, “A Just Transition for a Just World”
These slogans bury the objectivity of the existential crisis underneath a pile of political jargon, thus guaranteeing the alienation of some portion of the population. There is little more irresponsible than using an existential crisis to smuggle in one’s ideological beliefs. This is not how real emergencies are fought. Real emergencies require us to engage in apolitical messaging.
Conservative Catholics and Radical Socialists in France — or Churchill and Stalin on the world stage — couldn’t have fought side by side if it weren’t for an apolitical approach and Nazism wouldn’t have been defeated. By having made the climate crisis an ideological issue, we have done a great disservice to the world — and the Left is equally at fault for this as the Right.
The approach of gaining votes by appealing to the Left and using their terminology won’t work for the Green movement. The Left will abandon you at the earliest opportunity. The only path is telling the truth regardless of the consequences. Until we understand the wisdom of this 4,000 year old advice, we are as good as dead.
It is high time we grew up and called a spade a spade, using neutral language to build national and transcultural alliances to tackle the climate crisis. This will not happen by trying to convert people to our political ideology. Witnessing the experiences of ordinary people in places facing the real consequences of the poisoning of earth has forced me to abandon ideology in service of the truth. When your house is on fire, you don’t pull out an ideological manifesto, you use common sense.
External link
