“You are the salt of the Earth” : Towards Ecological Justice

John Samuel

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness , it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled up on”
Jesus ( Mathew 5:13)


“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.
We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family”
Chief Seattle (approx. 1852)
A letter in response to a U.S. Government inquiry about buying tribal lands

We are face to face with an impending ecological crisis. As we finish the first decade of the 21st century , the planet and earth and the forces of nature are staring at us- with a sense of revenge.; revenge against the injustice of exploiting the earth, and all that belonged to the earth- in search of pleasures and profit. The impending ecological crisis raise profound moral questions about the choices and patterns of our life, development paradigm as well as about our universal responsibility to each other, earth and biosphere.

It is time to locate the real crisis of food and economy , within the context of the impending ecological crisis that can harm the very sustenance and future of the earth. The ongoing discussion and debates on global warming and climate change should help us to think beyond the immediate concern about technical negotiation of climate change to the larger ethical crisis that confront the very essence of humanity and human civilization. It is time to develop effective moral and political response based on a shared commitment to Ecological and planetary justice.


The issues related to Global Warming and Climate Change acquired a sense of urgency in the context of the ongoing negotiations in relation to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The ongoing discussions and debate on climate change has multiple subtexts of political economy, international politics and paradigm of development. Climate Change negotiation and discussions clearly brings out the unequal and unjust relationships between the rich countries in the global north and those countries- at the receiving end of the colonialism, extractive economic relationship and poverty. The discourse also signifies the ongoing economic and political tension between the rich countries and the emerging economies such as China and India, though it may not necessary in the interest of the large number of citizens in the respective countries.

Though everyone is concerned about the disastrous effect of the global warming, at the core of the climate change negotiation are the economic interests of the economic and political elites in rich and emerging countries. The sub-texts of climate change negotiations are the politics of technology, market, trade, economic growth and aid architecture. On the one hand rich countries are keen to capture the market for “green-technology” through the old trinity of aid, trade and debt. And on the other hand there is a concern that the emerging economies of China and India would further exasperate the climate vulnerability as well as the market potential of the rich countries.

The technical discussions and priorities on adaptation and mitigation are often a smoke screen for the underlying political economy of climate change. Mitigation in terms of clear commitment to quantifiable reduction of greenhouse gas emission and adaptation to meet the challenges of climate change should form the twin pillars of an effective response strategy. The rich countries and the respective civil society formations and aid agencies often give more stress to adaptation strategies in poor countries. This is important. However, advocacy for adaptation strategies in poor countries, without the necessary political pressure within the respective countries for quantifiable mitigation measures point out to the double speak even among the civil society actors in the global north.

While in the last twenty years new forms of disaster capitalism have emerged, there is indeed a possibility of the emergence of a new wave of Climate Capitalism- driven by new market for green technology, carbon-trading, technology transfers, adaptation funds etc. Multiple actors of the state, market and civil society are beginning to smell new opportunities of the emerging markets of “green technology”, adaptation funds and potential opportunities for economic growth. One the one hand poor communities and countries are at the receiving end of climate injustice, changing weather pattern, natural disasters, decreasing food production and unprecedented scarcity of water. On the other hand there is economic-development and consumption paradigm that undermines the very sustainability and bio-diversity of this planet. On the one hand there is a lot of talk about the disastrous effect of global warming. And on the other hand there is a fierce economic competition and political tussle between the rich and emerging countries to harvest on the anticipated Climate Capitalism. These dichotomies and paradoxes are at the core of the moral and ethical dilemma posed by the ongoing discourse on Climate Change.

Climate Change and natural disasters do not respect the territorial boundaries of the nation-states. Hence, it is important to locate the ongoing discourse beyond the narrow confines and interests of the nation-state to a moral and ethical plane of ecological and planetary justice. It is important to locate the discourse within the framework of human rights, and social and economic justice. The issue of global warming raises a deeper moral dilemma: Isn’t it immoral to promote an unsustainable consumption-based economic growth model that would make disastrous consequence to the coming generation as well as to very sustainability of the planet?. Without discussing the core problem of unsustainable and unjust consumption and economic growth model that survive on extractive relationship between the rich and poor countries and the rich people and earth, we can not have a morally viable discourse on the politics of global warming and climate change. The ethics and politics of climate change need to precede the economic calculus of climate change. Hence, it is all the more important to bring the issue of human rights and justice to the heart of the discourse on global warming.
.

Removal of injustice demands the advancing of justice. Hence it is time to talk about ecological and planetary justice. The root of justice is ethics. These ethical roots of Justice are to a large extent derived from the inter-faith legacies. Justice constitutes a set of moral conditions and choices to advance fairness through equality of human persons, human dignity, capability as well as universal human responsibility to each other and to the sustainability of bio-sphere and this planet.


Human rights are universal, indivisible and inalienable. Justice too is indivisible. The justice perspective precedes the human rights perspective in many ways. Regarding the right to food, we must consider both ecological justice and economic and social justice. These are indivisible. You cannot talk about one without the other. The issue of economic growth can not be discussed without understanding the historical and ecological injustice involved at the core of extractive power-relationships of colonialism, imperialism and exploitation. From the perspective of ecological justice, the impacts of climate change are unequal and unjust. Poor countries and poor people contribute least to the climate change and are affected most by the consequence of it. G8 countries create more than 40% of emissions. China and India will soon overtake the G8 countries in this respect. Poor people and island nations are already experiencing the adverse effects of variations in the weather patterns. Recently, millions of people in Philippines have been affected by tropical storms and flooding. We must be aware of these impacts and what it truly takes to mitigate them. The irony is that even the new enthusiasm of various conferences on climate change has a high carbon footprint. Many of us flew here for these discussions and we are staying in an air-conditioned hotel , eating imported food.


There is a profound irony in the ongoing development paradigm which is based on high energy intensive and carbon-emission technologies and life styles and at the same time trying finding solutions with the same problem. As long as we – our life styles, modes of transports and modes of consumption- are a part of the problem, how can we find a viable solution without altering the content and character of the development paradigm- that is still based on the industrial and extractive character of the modern capitalist model.



Interfaith Perspective on Ecological Justice.

Without discussing mode of living, modes of production, modes of consumption, modes of technology and modes of economic growth, how can we have any meaningful discussion on ecological and planetary justice? This deep paradox between the gap between the walk and talk, deeds and words, reality and aspiration raise the issue of moral vacuum within the mainstream climate change discourse

The interfaith perspective on justice and human rights would help to build a more ethical discourse .The idea of human dignity is the cornerstone of human rights and justice . The notion of human dignity can be traced to various ideas and experience of the divinity. In almost all religious and faith traditions one can see affirmation of human dignity as well as the idea of divine. In that sense human dignity can be seen as a reflection of the divine- a reflection of a universal ideal- omnipotent and omnipresent- beyond the time and space.

The bridge between dignity and divinity is the constant search for truth and freedom- a perennial source of human creativity and explorations. The ethical as well as existential link between human beings and nature signify an eternal planetary communion: a commitment to share the resources of nature- air, water, earth, trees, forests, rivers, hills, birds, animals and every expressions of life- the entire biodiversity and the living species. The notion of sharing is what makes communions an ethical act. This divine compact of planetary communion is violated and broken by the human greed to accumulate, acquire and subjugate.

The ethical act of sharing is displaced by the exploitative acts of extractive accumulation, subjugation and injustice. The violation of the compact of planetary communion between of all living specious is symptomatic of a moral crisis of the erosion of divinity as well as human dignity in human lives and choices.

When Bhagavad-Gita says “ Loko samstha Sukinobhavnthu”( let all in the world be well)- it reflects a primordial commitment and compact of planetary well-being and communion. Vedas and Upanishads clearly talk about the life-centric perspective- as distinct from an anthropo-centric world view. In the Mount Sermon when Jesus said “ You are the salt of the earth”( Mathew 5:13)- it was to remind us of the human responsibility towards the earth and other living specious. Salt is the metaphor of life, sustainability ,preservation, and shared resources- symbolizing the elemental and life constituting character of human responsibility .In Islam, Buddhism and all other faith traditions one can trace the same ethical assertion about the universal human responsibility. St. Francis of Assisi helped us to understand the divinity and spirituality in a sort of mystical unity of human beings with all the living species. In fact this ethical assertion of human responsibility is what makes justice and human rights eminent moral choices of our times.

An inclusive ethical commitment to the sustainability and well-being of all living specious is at the core of planetary justice: a part and parcel of universal human responsibility. Ecological justice is an expression of the universal moral human responsibility to all earth and all expression of life- on the land, in the water, in the air, and within the sea or on the tops of mountains

Food Sovereignty and Right to Food.

Among many, there are two immediate concerns in the context of the possible consequence of global warming and changing weather patterns- as a consequence of Climate Change. The first one is the increasing instance of various natural disasters- which may or may not have a direct connection with climate change. The second one is the issue of food sovereignty. More and more communities and countries are losing their food sovereignty. Food sovereignty indicates the ability and power to control and manages the sources and modes of production of the food, within a given community or country. Food sovereignty involves the right of people and community over land, water and forests – that would enable them to control the sources and means of production. There is a decrease in the food production, part in many countries, particularly among the small and marginal farmers. This has to do with the changing weather pattern and increasing take over of agriculture by the corporate monopolies and rich countries. There is an increasing trend towards corporatization of agriculture and take over millions of hectares of land in Africa- at the cost of the small and marginal farmers and food sovereignty of communities and countries


Along with air and water, food is the most important elemental necessity for every living specious and human beings to survive. Right to food is the first among the enabling rights of human beings. The fast changing weather pattern – potential result of climate change- affect food sovereignty and right to food of communities and countries.

Food sovereignty has been taken from producers and farmers by their own nation-states and then by huge corporations that monopolize technology. The modern notion of Power is related to the monopoly of technology and knowledge. Monopoly and control over Technology is often used to take control over the food production and resources. Such corporatization of agriculture, in the name of “food security” – and “green revolution” is hardly green. Such efforts take away the viability and sustainability of small and marginal farming. This also would eventually make food less available, accessible and affordable. And eventually many communities and countries will be dependent on big companies and markets for their food. The lack of control of food would undermine the human rights to food.

The adverse impacts of climate change on ecosystems also affect sovereignty over food production. Firstly, life cannot adapt as quickly as the climate is changing. We are experiencing unprecedented instances natural disasters. Don’t blame God. This is not an accident of history. This is our making and comes from unequal and unjust power relationships of extracting and exploiting natural resources: forests, water, marine resources and air . Food decreases due to changing weather patterns- untimely rain, decreased rainfall, and unusual drought . Secondly, desertification decreases the amount of arable land. Thirdly, migration from rural to urban areas increases due to lack of water, natural disasters and the unviability of small and medium farming.Urban poor across the world are environmental, economic and social refugees.

The urban-centric, energy-intensive economic growth model induces rural urban migration at unprecedented level and further accentuates the high carbon-emitting economic growth model. This on the one hand affects the food production and viability of sustainable agriculture in the rural areas and on the other hand increases unprecedented level of human density in the urban areas- with consequent pressure on environmental resources, demand for water and resultant pollution. The increasing number of urban slums and urban poverty poses new challenges to the idea of food sovereignty and ecological sustainability.


Mining factories in the rural hinterlands are emitting both carbon and poor people. Instead of addressing poverty, factories are in the business of displacing and killing the poor. Polluting factories and corporatized agriculture will displace millions of marginal farmers and excluded communities at the receiving end of the extractive economic development paradigm. While the rich people waste millions of tons of food, there are hundreds of millions people who go bed hungry every single day. This is unjust. This is a result of ecological as well as economic injustice.

Biofuel and agro fuel are also produced and monopolized by huge transnational corporations. Land is used for fuel and not for food. Monopoly of technology and economy leads to corporatization of land, which leads to disempowerment of people, poverty, and food crisis.

The question is not merely about how much food is produced, but who is producing it and how and where and for whom.


We are once again witnessing a repetition of colonial sins with the way food is produced and distributed. Some of the new “revolutions” to combat climate change and promote food security are also manifestations of new colonialism. Millions of hectares of land in Africa are taken over by rich companies and rich countries. The soc-called new green revolution in Africa- Advancing the Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are promoted by some of the most powerful companies and countries of the world. While one may that we need to produce more food- one wonders whether such new corporatization of agriculture in Africa will further impoverish large majority of people experiencing hunger and injustice every single day. Apart from the question of how “green” are the proposed green revolution, there is a serious concern that in the proposed promise of food “security” – food sovereignty of the people of Africa and elsewhere will be compromised. As of now there is nothing much of “green” or “revolution” in the new search for monopoly control of natural resources and land in Africa.

The question is whether the “green’ revolution enriches the rich or enables the poor to have food on the plate. The new environmental and economic unviability of small and marginal farming also undermines the human dignity and human rights of farmers. Thousands of farmers in India committed suicide because their dignity is violated. Farmers are the most dignified people in the world. They produce with their mind, soul and body. A farmer would rather protect this dignity with his death than lose it through the dehumanization that comes with loss of control of production methods and the loss of food sovereignty. Pesticide resistance and patented crop varieties are among the many mechanisms that huge companies use to control production and ensure monopoly over nature. Yes, we need to produce more food. But who produces for whom , where and how do matter .

Sustainable and eco-friendly small scale agriculture and sustainable technology – are key to food sovereignty of impoverished communities and countries.
Food sovereignty of nations and people can only be realized by strengthening sustainable agriculture and protecting the right of small and marginal farmers to live in dignity. Governments must protect these without compromising the climate and environment.

The struggles for justice and human rights have to be at every level. Human right to food is non-negotiable. The adverse impact of climate change and corporatization of agriculture would undermine our right to food. We need to ask hard questions about the nature of consumption and the nature of economic growth model. Climate change is an issue of justice, as is food rights. A call to act for justice-ecological, economic and social- should precede the technical negotiations of climate change. If human dignity is rooted in divinity. The idea of divinity rooted in our search for truth. The truth is that there is something terribly wrong and immoral in the way exploit the beauty and bounty of the earth- all that what makes it a sustainable habitat for millions of living species. Such a truth should help us to be free- free to imagine different choices of life, consumption and living. A freedom that makes the earth and all in to sustain and thrive.


The time has come to rediscover ethical assertion by the Chief of Seattle at the dawn of modern civilization in the mid 19th century

“This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.”

(This is an expanded version of the key note presentation in the International Interfaith Consultation on Climate Change in Bangkok on October 1, 2009)