15 Buddhist Contributions to Climate Response
LIKE MANY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, BUDDHISTS ARE ASKING disturbing questions about climate change: Why aren't people more concerned? 'Why is climate denial so widespread? Why don't people care about the future? Well-known figures in the West such as Al Gore and Bill McKibben insist that we (and particularly those in the developed world) have a moral responsibility to mitigate climate Suffer¬ing and work toward a sustainable future. What role can Buddhists play in this effort? What role should Buddhists play? 'While it seems unlikely that Buddhist leaders will take up a major scientific or policy role, I be¬lieve Buddhist ethics and practice offer a helpful resource in addressing climate denial. Through the clear lens of the Dharma eye, we may see that climate denial represents a convenient environmental privilege for those in the developed world.
The physical predictions for climate change are well described and ac¬cepted by climate scientists around the world.' We know that the warm¬ing atmosphere has already accelerated melt rates of ice shelves in the Arctic, Antarctica, and Greenland. Glaciers in almost all mountain ranges of the world are retreating rapidly, and thawing permafrost threatens to release unprecedented amounts of methane that would further accelerate climate change. Climate models indicate that feedback from interlocking global systems will generate unexpected impacts and irreversible changes. Extreme weather events and climate-related disasters will become more common and generate widespread human suffering. All predictions point to many more rough years as atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, meth¬ane, and nitrous oxide continue to rise. Very quickly we are speaking of not just, as we say in Buddhism, the suffering of 10,000 beings, but the suffering of ioo,000 tens of io,000 beings.
The science of climate change has clearly entered the domain of public discourse. Yet the scientific facts alone are not yet generating sufficient motivation for wide-scale global policy change. It has become increas¬ingly apparent that human behavior and attitudes, whether driven by greed, fear, or ignorance, are determining the direction of planetary cli¬mate. In June 2013 I attended one of a series of conferences held at Garrison Institute in New York entitled "Climate, Mind and Behavior." This institute has taken up the mission of developing climate conversations among social scientists, particularly psychologists and sociologists. Be¬cause of the institute's spiritual orientation, they were also interested in Buddhist perspectives. Panel sessions raised questions such as: How will people manage the suffering generated by climate change? How can pro¬fessionals in psychology and social science help cities, regions, and states find approaches that work? How do we understand "mitigation," "adap¬tation," and "resilience" as psychological and social concepts? Academic scholarship has increased rapidly in this area, with research centers, curricula, and social psychological studies now finding critical mass.' Many studies raise the question: Why are people not paying attention to climate change? Why are they not galvanized into action?
In order to consider Buddhist tools for working with climate denial, let me review three common psychological explanations summarized by sociologist Kari Marie Norgaard.3
The first is known as the information deficit model. In this model the assumption is that people do not know enough to take action. If they knew more, they would respond with ap¬propriate steps to reduce impacts. We assume that by providing people with all the facts about climate change, they will then be motivated to take action. However, this proves not to be true. It turns out that knowl¬edge in and of itself is not nearly so motivating as emotional engagement. Studies show that even well-informed people may be paralyzed by too much knowledge or a sense that one's personal actions will not really make a difference.4
The second explanation draws on what psychologists call cognitive dis¬sonance, that people are able to hold two completely conflicting ways of viewing things in their minds without this affecting their daily lives. For example, people observe and respond to short-term weather patterns and adapt to the current state: if it is a little hotter than usual, they wear lighter clothing or turn up the air-conditioning. People make simple be¬havioral adjustments all the time to manage their comfort levels, usually understood as mechanisms for personal self-care. Climate concerns are held in another part of the brain, the place of cognitive learning in the cerebral cortex. According to this model, people can know about the im¬pacts of climate change but still act in everyday life as if their actions had no relationship to climate change.
The third explanation focuses on emotional blocks limiting response to climate change. There can be tremendous insecurity, fear, and anxiety tied up with climate change predictions. It is, by now, common to witness via the media, people under siege with the shock of massive flooding, or the despair from extreme drought. Such emotional states reverberate em¬pathically between viewers and those caught in the climate crosshairs. We sense, if even vaguely, that such a disaster could strike close to home and that we, too, might experience such difficult and unpleasant emotional states. Further, people in developed countries may feel a sense of help¬lessness and guilt about global inequalities, a fear of being seen as a bad and uncaring person. Such difficult emotions are not easy to manage; no one really likes to experience these feeling states, especially when they are associated with lack of personal control. For some, climate change may generate an even broader ontological insecurity, a sense of threat to the entire continuity of life, accompanied by a significant loss of meaning.'
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DENIAL
To further understand the mechanisms that support denial, I turn to Norgaard's in-depth study of climate perspectives in Norway. Her find¬ings indicate that climate attitudes are not only personally held but are culturally constructed through social norms and patterns. The work challenges the psychological explanations discussed earlier, which place the locus of denial entirely within the individual. Because her case focus is a developed country, it suggests there may be parallel norms operat¬ing in other developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia.
As described by Norgaard, Norwegians are highly engaged in their local communities, politically active in local governance, socially active with neighbors and peers, and physically active in the outdoors. They could hardly be called apathetic. Norgaard observed several key factors that actively contributed to the social construction of denial. First, she noticed there were no appropriate social spaces for discussing climate change.' Political meetings focused on local concerns and governance questions, such as budget or policy issues. Climate change impacts were simply too far away for local governance agendas. Recreational settings also did not offer a place to discuss difficult issues such as climate change. In these settings (the gym, the outdoors, the bar) people were supposed to recover from life's stresses and not talk about hard things. In educa¬tional settings, teachers expressed the need to stay optimistic for future generations, thus limiting discussion of climate impacts and uncertainty.
Norgaard also pointed to Norwegian emotional norms that tend to favor maintaining control, norms that are also prevalent in the United States. She found three typical emotional responses to climate change. First, it is common to take a "tough" attitude and not to show feelings of powerlessness and uncertainty. Second, it is important to "stay cool," to not be too serious about anything, but especially not something as mon¬umental as climate change. Third, it is important to "be smart." If you want to engage climate change, then you need to be informed and have good answers for the challenges that lie before us. All three conversa¬tional patterns favor maintaining a sense of personal control and avoiding a sense of loss of control from facing the realities of climate change. For mental health, it was important to focus only on what one person could do to be effective and keep a positive attitude toward life. Her conclusion was that denial is not an afterthought. It is a convenience, a construction, and perhaps even a privilege.'
The possibility that climate denial is a privilege raises moral and eth¬ical issues in the realm of environmental justice and equity. Human suf¬fering from climate change is far greater in the developing world than in the developed world. Shouldn't people with greater financial assets, education, and physical security be concerned for those who must face climate change with far fewer resources? Norgaard suggests that "people occupying privileged social positions encounter 'invisible paradoxes'—awkward, troubling moments they seek to avoid, pretend not to have experienced (often as a matter of social tact), and forget as quickly as possible once those moments have passed."' Such paradoxes are partic¬ularly acute in the arena of energy extraction and production. People in privileged socioeconomic classes have almost no contact with these oper¬ations and their destructive impacts on the environment. It is simpler to actively maintain a state of denial than to engage the moral complexities that arise in confronting climate change. This is both cognitive disso¬nance in action and socially constructed denial. We could call this an environmental privilege of the developed world.
BUDDHIST CONTRIBUTIONS TO CLIMATE DIALOGUE
I have been focusing on the role of denial in climate change because I believe this offers an avenue where religions can work with climate psy¬chology and social values. Before turning to Buddhism specifically, let me review five key capacities relevant to climate action and organized religion as identified by Gary Gardner.'
First, religions can engage their members, and for some denominations, this is a very large number of people who may be influenced or educated by religious positions.
Second, religions can draw on moral authority to address climate change. Such authority is held by religious leaders in all faiths, as well as by respected religious texts.
Third, religions provide meaning by shaping worldviews. A religious message or set of values related to protecting the environment can provide a platform for discussing climate change.
Fourth, religions can use their physical and financial resources strategically to encourage energy conservation, develop social resilience, and make morally respon¬sible investments. The cumulative effect of such choices can have a sig¬nificant impact, as evidenced by the contributions of Interfaith Power and Light and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility." Fifth, religious communities have tremendous potential for building social cap¬ital to respond to climate change.
Despite these advantageous capacities, religions may also present barriers to taking up the challenges of climate change. Religious leaders can be reluctant to discuss climate issues with their congregations, thus unintentionally colluding with a certain level of social denial acceptable to their congregations. Their religious message may require greater emphasis on personal salvation than on worldly goals. And in some cases, religious organizations can be aggressively obstructive in their actions to maintain climate denial. This is clear in the Six Americas study that iden¬tifies a link between evangelical beliefs and active dismissal of the realities of climate change.11
The 2013 issue of the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Cul¬ture provides an overview of some of the climate actions that have been taken by religious leaders and organizations. A number of denominations have issued climate position statements or developed initiatives such as the Green Sanctuary Program, adopted by many Protestant churches. 12 Many denominations include disaster-relief service as part of their social mission and are ready to contribute when climate crises hit. Religious coalitions such as the World Council of Churches, Alliance of Religions and Con¬servation, and Interfaith Power and Light advocate for climate awareness and action at the global level, leveraging their denominational resources to support such initiatives. When the US president withdrew the United States from the Paris climate treaty in 2017, the Parliament of the World's Religions responded with a strong statement of condemnation, declaring it a moral failure of responsibility."
How active have Buddhist groups been in the climate conversation? John Stanley, David Loy, and Gyurme Dorje, editors of A Buddhist Re¬sponse to the Climate Emergency, were highly motivated to engage Tibetan teachers and leaders because the Tibetan plateau north of the Himalaya Mountain range is the birthplace of so many critically important river sys¬tems of Asia—the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Saiween, Yangtze, Mekong, and Irawaddy.14 They created a Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change that has been signed by sixty-five Buddhist leaders in thirteen countries, in¬cluding Gyalwang Karmapa XVII, Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Joseph Goldstein, and Jan Chozen Bays.15 Buddhist temples have also initiated alternative energy projects in India, Japan, Canada, and Australia and participated in interfaith actions such as the Interreligious Dialogue on Climate Change, 2012.16 In 2015, activists with Buddhist Peace Fellowship marched in Rome as part of the One Earth, One Family interfaith demonstration for Pope Francis. Their banner read, "The whole Earth is my true body; I vow to work for climate justice."" Climate web resources for Buddhists have been developed at Ecobuddhism.org and OneEarthSangha.org as well as on Joanna Macy's website for the Work That Reconnects.
Certainly, many basic Buddhist teachings and practices could be en¬gaged in relationship to climate change. These would include the precepts or moral guidelines based on nonharming, as well as the central law of con¬ditioned interdependence and causation that reflects a systems or holistic, ecological woridview. Buddhist texts emphasize liberation from suffering through insight awareness based in meditation, and this practice could be applied to climate-related suffering. Perhaps most important may be the practices that strengthen intention and compassion on behalf of others. All of these are very rich offerings and can easily be applied to moral and eth¬ical dilemmas deriving from climate change impacts. Furthermore, they are accessible to non-Buddhists or those not affiliated with any religion as skillful means for addressing the consequences of climate change.
However, it should be acknowledged that Buddhist leaders and orga¬nizations have limited influence in the wider global context of climate change. Certainly they have limited influence on the biophysical world itself, where ice sheets are melting, storms are becoming more severe, and sea level is rising. Likewise, they have relatively limited influence on climate science or global policy regarding carbon emissions and the fossil fuel industry. For example, while individual Buddhists have partic¬ipated in actions protesting the Keystone XL and other pipelines, but few Buddhist environmental groups are addressing this issue as a top pri¬ority. Buddhists, in general, have fairly limited religious influence on the climate denial campaign or the industrial scope of big carbon polluters. Naming these limitations is important so as not to overstate the possibil¬ities at hand.
Having surveyed the territory, I find the greatest potential for a Bud¬dhist contribution to lie within the psychological, ethical, and social as¬pects of climate change. Through philosophical analysis and mindfulness practice, I believe the Buddhist teachings can make a significant offering that parallels Buddhist contributions to other environment and social jus¬tice issues.
I suggest three avenues for engaging Buddhist thinking in this challenging climate conversation:
(i) exposing dualistic thinking,
(2) de¬veloping a Buddhist climate ethic, and
(3) building capacity for resilience.
Exposing Dualistic Thinking
Polarized views are one of the biggest impediments to progress with cli¬mate change. They generate tremendous suffering. Typically they are
expressed as humans versus nature, the economy versus the environment,-the developing world versus the developed world. Dualistic views tend to exaggerate differences rather than emphasizing commonalities. They reinforce oppositional positions, reducing creativity for shared solutions. From a Buddhist perspective, these positions would be seen as reflecting false views or false understanding of the self. It is the inflated idea of the self as one's central identity that blocks collaboration. Climate deniers and climate believers both form identity groups around their views, often defining themselves in opposition to the other. Yet seen from an interde¬pendent lens, all parties live on the same planet within a single intercon¬nected climate system.
Denial functions very effectively to reinforce egocentric views and personal defenses. It is not uncommon for some people to defend their environmentally privileged positions in public-policy stances while blam¬ing climate deniers. It is also not uncommon for some people to blame environmentalists while refuting the factual data and implications of cli¬mate reality. The North Carolina state legislature, for example, passed a bill limiting how high the sea can rise on their coastline." The phrase "climate change" was so politically charged that it did not appear any¬where in the legal policy. As a result of such limiting views in either di¬rection, the scale of human and ecological suffering is minimized or dismissed.
Taking a sociological view, we can see that climate change perspec¬tives often reflect differences in status, gender, race, governance struc¬tures, geography, culture. We can look at who is espousing which views in ways that provide political leverage and perpetuate oppositional thinking. Much has been written by people of the global South who are experienc¬ing climate change more dramatically than people in the more well-off North.19 Regions and nation states with high levels of energy production show particularly great extremes that divide people into climate-derived socioeconomic classes. Climate privilege generates groups of haves and have-nots in relation to wealth and poverty, health and sickness, nutrition and starvation, security and violence. Poor countries such as Bangladesh and Tuvalu, for example, find themselves at the helpless end of the cli¬mate mitigation spectrum. I suggest that such widely accepted dualistic thinking plays a key role in maintaining global power relations and cli¬mate silence.
Practice and philosophical analysis are two arenas where Buddhists could provide some leadership on the issue of dualistic thinking as an ob¬stacle to effective climate action. The practice field would be represented by religious leaders in Buddhist practice centers and organizations. Dis¬cussing dualistic thinking would be a natural extension of dharma topics already typical at Buddhist centers. These include such things as under¬standing interdependence of self and other, the influence and manifes¬tations of ego and power, the challenge of refraining from polarizing views, and the core practice of self-reflection as part of action. This sort of teaching is cultural work, aimed at shifting the operational field from conflict to collaboration, from discord to respect.
In terms of philosophical analysis, individual writers and thinkers may be able to use Buddhist principles to promote climate policies that min¬imize polarized views. This might be seen as "small b" Buddhist work, serving the wider community. Drawing on a Buddhist approach, these thought leaders could facilitate dialogue through hearing all sides for their particular truths, based on direct experience with climate impacts. Buddhists or those using Buddhist ideas and practices may be in a good position to help create the conversation spaces flagged by Norgaard that are currently unavailable in normal social discourse. Such spaces might make it possible to see how climate change affects all parties. The em¬phasis would be on shared outcomes, thus reducing actions driven by self-interest. This is a natural reflection of Buddhist principles and fits well with green Buddhist practice efforts."
Developing a Buddhist Climate Ethic
Ethics, including religious ethics, offer fundamental guidelines for min¬imizing suffering through practicing restraint. A climate ethic would frame such guidelines in the context of minimizing suffering or impact to the global climate through individual and social practices. Like other ethics, the aim is social stability, allowing human society to flourish with¬out being continually under threat of harm.
A Buddhist climate ethic would be based in Buddhist ethical princi¬ples and a Buddhist understanding of human psychology. Buddhist texts explain human behaviors in terms of desire: the grasping or craving after something and the development of ego-identification with the particular craving. Suffering is explained as the perpetual human tendency to be hooked by addictive needs and short-term gratification. The three most basic desires are: (i) greed, the desire for more of something, (2) aversion, the desire for less of something, and (3) delusion, the desire for illusory options or self-made fantasies. Ignorance of one's own desire patterns inevitably generates a state of suffering. Liberation from suffering comes from "seeing" the patterns with awareness insight.
With this basic Buddhist framework and some insight into the key role of denial, we can look at how the three aspects of desire might support climate change denial. Certainly greed for the never-ending mountain of consumer goods keeps people entertained and oblivious to climate change. The more energy, connectivity, and comfort people desire, the less likely they are to be interested in the sources upon which their life supports depend. Understanding desire and practicing restraint can help reduce climate impacts from overconsumption. Likewise, aversion to complex and socially challenging situations such as climate change can quickly shut down conversations. Aversion polarizes dialogue about en¬ergy and transportation choices while carbon levels continue to rise. Per¬haps delusion is the most prominent feature in climate denial; it is simply easier to pretend another better future will unfold, despite the observable facts, or to hope, on little evidence, that a technological fix will be found to save us from a climate-caused dystopia.
I propose that a Buddhist climate ethic support a broadly defined goal of well-being. Well-being is another phrase for contentment or satisfac¬tion, santutthi in Pali. In Buddhist teachings, contentment is explained as the absence of grasping, the absence of desire. The state of satisfaction is free of pulls toward or away from identity-enhancing objects or activ¬ities. Well-being can be defined at multiple levels in support of a climate ethic. At the individual level, this would mean good health, meaningful work, a sense of internal control in the face of climate change. At the social level, this would mean a safe and stable civil society; with appropri¬ate governance and market structures to support community well-being under climate change. At the global level, this would mean the capac¬ity to engage in collaborative support for planetary well-being. Spiritual well-being would reflect right relationship with self and community as well as right relationship with the natural world. It would be marked by ethical clarity and intention to refrain from harming, as well as respect for non-Buddhist ethical paths.
I further propose that nonharming and compassion be the founda¬tional concepts in a Buddhist climate ethic (as in all Buddhist ethics). Nonharming aligns well with the precautionary principle, an important policy principle that is well-established in Europe and inscribed in Euro¬pean Union law. This approach is supported by a deep and thoughtful philosophical and scientific literature." In brief, this principle advises re¬straint where the degree of harm is unknown. Many drivers of climate change such as extreme energy extraction, carbon dioxide pollution, and overconsumption would be moderated by application of the precaution¬ary principle. Efforts to mitigate climate change and develop adaptive measures would then be based on reducing harm wherever possible.
The practice of nonharming is guided by five primary Buddhist pre¬cepts for human action that help cultivate compassion, or caring for others' well-being as equal to and interdependent with one's own well¬being. These five are: (i) not harming life, (2) not taking what is not given, () not participating in abusive relations, (.) not speaking falsely, and () not using intoxicating substances or behaviors. Each of these could be developed in depth in relation to climate change. Practicing these precepts in the context of climate change would provide social support for choosing sustainable behaviors. The core questions become: What is our ethical obligation in the context of climate change? Knowing how dependent human society is on climate stability, what then must we do? Buddhist ethics view the individual as an active agent in a vast web of relationships where every action generates effects. Based on this worldview, I would argue that attaining ecological and economic sustainability under the challenges of rapid climate change requires ethical engagement. Individuals taking cli¬mate ethics seriously as an expression of nonharming and compassion could help lead actions toward ethically appropriate social, political, and economic policies. The practice of compassion also provides a platform for living with grief and other emotional states generated by what may be devastating and irretrievable losses.
Finally, I propose that a Buddhist climate ethic rest on the foundational law of karma, or cause and effect. To cultivate a long-term commitment to work ethically to mitigate climate impacts, this ethic could draw on the Buddhist sense of deep time. This is described in Buddhist texts in terms of multiple "kalpas," unfathomable stretches of time before (and after) humans on Earth. A karmic understanding of time derives naturally
from a Buddhist perspective. Most everyday activity tends to be viewed in the very short time frame of an individual human life, based on our general tendency toward self-referencing. A climate ethic could empha¬size the long eons of climate time, shifting perception to a more com¬plete or appropriate scale for human endeavor. This would help move the climate conversation away from denial and place it in more of an intergenerational, or even cosmic, perspective. Such a long view of time develops useful virtues for working with climate change, such as humil¬ity, patience, perspective, endurance, and equanimity. Each of these is described in Buddhist ethical teachings as mutually supportive in the development of an awakened person. Equanimity is one of the Four Immeasurables, a virtue boundless in its positive contribution to a stable society. Climate change impacts will not be eliminated overnight; it will take many people's efforts over many decades to accomplish planetary climate stability. A climate ethic based in the practices of nonharming, compassion, and a deep view of time is one that can serve for the long scope of this project.
Building Capacity for Resilience
A third arena for Buddhist action is building capacity for resilience. This very practical concept is part of current discussions related to climate impacts, following closely on two other dominant approaches. The first is mitigation, or efforts to dampen the inevitable impacts of sea level rise and storm flooding, often through mechanical means such as barriers, channels, dams. The second is adaptation to what has already changed, often in the form of preparedness actions. Building resilience is building the capacity to rebound psychologically, socially, economically, and polit¬ically from a climate impact. I believe Buddhist practice tools have a great deal to offer in this arena.
Mindfulness practice has become very popular in the West, with ac¬tive movements to bring mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and other secular mindfulness techniques to schools, hospices, prisons, and business places.22 Through deliberate attention to body, breath, and mind, the mindfulness practitioner becomes more fully engaged in the present moment. This sort of grounded presence is what you would want for emergency workers if they are dealing with a climate crisis in your town. I would not be surprised to see mindfulness training developed for climate disaster emergency-response teams. Such training would help reduce anxiety, speculation, and projection about what is happening in a climate-related event and assist people in figuring out what is needed to return to normal social functioning. This is a very practical application of Buddhist skillful means. As Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh often says, "The most precious gift we can offer others is our presence.""
To build capacity for resilience, it is necessary to include—not sup¬press or resist—the troubling emotions associated with climate change. I am suggesting here that emotional self-knowledge builds capacity for helping others break through denial. Climate change social scientist Susanne Moser has been speaking to legislators and academics about using social-science communication skills as well as Buddhist practices as skillful means in climate work. In an article on leadership for climate change work, she writes about three key capacities.24 The first is being able to speak clearly and calmly about what is real. The second is being able to hold paradox—to feel what is in conflict and yet still be able to move forward. The third is being able to do grief work, accepting that climate change means people will be grieving the loss of the world as they know it. Good leaders need to be comfortable with their own grief work if they are to help others effectively.
Stability and calmness increase the capacity for building social resil¬ience in community. Buddhist virtue ethics clearly value equanimity and stability. The Dalai Lama models this beautifully through his steady pres¬ence in the midst of facing the devastating blows to his people and, society across the past fifty years. As he says, "Because we all share this planet Earth, we have to learn to live in harmony and peace with each other and with nature. This is not just a dream, but a necessity."" He models how to be with the suffering in the world and still take effective action. This will be critical as climate conditions deteriorate in the various ways that I have outlined—flooding, fires and heat, extreme weather conditions, loss of food crops. The Buddhist practice of equanimity means staying cen¬tered in the midst of changing climate conditions and being prepared for the impacts on social and economic support systems. Families, schools, and governance structures all will struggle to make ends meet and stay afloat during the unexpected and unimaginable.
The Buddhist concept of sangha may offer another model for build¬ing capacity for resilience. Along with Buddha and dharma, sangha is
said to be one of the three priceless treasures in Buddhism. Investing effort in building community strengthens the wider sangha of all beings. We might see it as an antidote to the social gaps identified by Norgaard that undermine climate response capacity. Sangha can be strengthened through supporting local ecological relationships, local governance struc¬tures, or neighborhood initiatives. It might mean coordinating disaster preparedness on a neighborhood block, taking steps to reduce consump¬tion, or cultivating friendships to build social resilience." Deepening awareness practice in a local experience of sangha can increase knowledge and attention to local seasons, weather, and a sense of living well in place. This is "small b" Buddhism in service to sustaining life, skillful means for climate change.
Thinking creatively to apply Buddhist teachings to climate change is a task of our times. Climate change cannot be ignored. It offers widespread opportunity to deepen personal practice and to apply powerful Buddhist teachings in a contemporary setting. In light of the stubborn persistence of climate change denial, I have suggested specific responses to climate change from a Buddhist religious, ethical, and spiritual perspective. These are not intended as finished prescriptions but as a starting point for what I hope will be much more dialogue and further engagement. I offer this as a call to others to join the conversation—with scientists, social scientists, environmentalists, people of faith, and especially with those who are suffering the devastating impacts of climate change. This is a sober charge that will require much imaginative thinking and strong spirit. Right here in the midst of this great challenge is the opportunity for great joy and intimacy in approaching this fragile but resilient life.
