The Green Tau

Green Tau: Issue 93

21st August 2024

Should we give up flying for the sake of the planet?

I recently took part in a radio show where this was the topic being discussed. I am someone who for the last 20 years (I think) has deliberately chosen – for environmental reasons – not to fly. The other panellist was a pilot for a charity that flies people and resources in and out of remote islands in Asia. Two extremes but actually we both agreed that there were some instances when flying was a good thing – such as providing medical support for people, which could be for remote islanders in the Pacific, islanders living off the coasts of Scotland or for medical emergencies where an air ambulance can rapidly transfer people to hospital. Equally flying might be a key way of getting resources, food and medicines to areas cut off from other modes of transport after natural and other disasters.

However such instances do not make up the bulk of air travel across the world, nor are they applicable to the majority of locations worldwide. Most flights are scheduled flights, mostly carrying passengers.

According to a report by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), in 2023, there were 36 million aircraft departures, conveying some 4497 million scheduled passengers plus cargo. Measured in terms of revenue, scheduled passengers generated $646 billion and cargo $138 billion. (1)

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions. However its impact on global warming is even more because of the impact of planes at high altitude affecting the concentration of other atmospheric gases and pollutants. (2)

If 2.5% of global emissions seems small, we need to remember that these emissions come from just 10% of the world’s population – nine out ten people don’t fly and that is almost always because it is an unaffordable luxury.

Yet air travel is predicted to continue to increase – ISTA predicts a 3.8% increase in passenger numbers every year, resulting in 4 billion extra passenger journeys by 2043. (1) Is this sensible – indeed justifiable – given the impact that this would have on the amount of carbon held in the atmosphere and its impact on accelerating the rise in global temperatures and the impact of that on daily life for most people?

Even if planes become more efficient in burning fuel, and even if sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) becomes a reality at scale, can the airline industry increase flights and at the same time reducing emissions? Not so according to the predictions of the consultants Bain and Company:-

“We estimate that the airline industry’s current decarbonisation measures will result in a net 3.4% increase in its global CO2 emissions by 2030 vs. 2019 levels. This is based on the outlook that a 23% reduction in CO2 emissions per RPK (thanks to fleet renewal and sustainable aviation fuel usage) would be more than offset by a 36% increase in global RPK [revenue passenger kilometres – the number of paying passengers multiplied by the total distance traveled]. It would require an additional carbon tax equivalent to 5% of average ticket prices worldwide in order for the industry to maintain its 2019 C02 emissions volume in 2030, according to our forecast.” (3)

The conclusion must then be that the 10% of us who do fly, should think twice about doing so. We should stop flying to safeguard our own future, to safe guard the future of the next generation, and to safeguard the lives of the 90% who are not even contributing to the problem. As Christians we have the command that we should love our neighbour as ourself which includes each and every neighbour on the other side of the world who does or doesn’t fly. And caring for our neighbour will include conserving aviation fuel for those planes and helicopters providing emergency aid and access for those remote and inaccessible places

Of course our worry is that while we may make the sacrifice of not flying, no one else will and therefore our actions will not have any safeguarding affect! That is a good reason to sign the Flight Free Pledge (4) to generate a groundswell of people committed to not flying. It also becomes a good reason to talk about not flying, to create then social norm that flying is the exception not the norm, to expound the advantages of travelling instead by train – comfort, legroom, no congested airport lounges, less stress, seeing more of the countryside, sleepers for night travel, on board restaurants…

The other concern is cost. Whilst air travel is prohibitively expensive for most people, train travel can be equally prohibitive. Governments across the world need to be encouraged to impose taxes and operation rules to restrict air travel and to make train travel more affordable. To do so will be cost effective if it enables us to bring down emissions and properly tackle the climate crisis.

Yes absolutely we should give up flying to save the planet!

Counting on day … 153

21st August 2024

Niche construction

Many creatures – and plants – create niche environments that benefit their well being. For example, many birds make nests as a safe place to raise their young; beavers build dams to create deep waters where they can build a lodge (home) where they will be safe from predators such as wolves and bears; termites build mounds to both protect their underground nests from predators and to ensure cool fresh air for their nest.

Likewise humans have from early days created niche environments that have helped them thrive – building houses on platforms in a lake to protect them from predators; burning wooded areas to create open spaces where they could graze animals and sow crops; obstructing rivers to trap fish. And we continue to do this! One new venture could be in creating 15 minute cities where we can live more independently of cars and improve social communication.

Counting on day … 152

20th August 2024

Domesticators

One thing humans have done is to domesticate plants and animals. This is trait is not unique to humans. Whilst we domesticated dogs to help us both with hunting and to guard our homes and – when we had domesticated sheep – our flocks, other creatures too have domesticated plants and creatures to improve their lives.

For example leaf cutter ants have domesticated particular fungi by feeding them freshly cut plants and protecting them from pests and moulds (by secreting an antibacterial chemical). The ants then use the fungi to feed their themselves and their young.

Once domesticated, that plant or creature may not be able to thrive without its domesticator. Domestication can nevertheless help creatures control their habitat in a way that can be mutually beneficial.

Counting on day … 151

19th August 2024

If we embrace the definition that humans are as much a part of nature as any other living thing, how does that prompt us to understand humans as contributors to the natural environment?

As hunter gatherers, were early humans any different from other creatures in their interaction with the natural environment?
Like other creatures they would have found ways of getting food – hunting and gathering – and water, finding shelter from the elements and protection from dangers, evolving ways of rearing their young, learning and passing on knowledge about what was safe and what was dangerous in their environment, developing forms of communication to share knowledge, to give warning of danger, and to build social cohesion. They would have developed patterns of living that optimised their survival – and on an ongoing basis adapted these as and when the environment changed around them.

Proper 15, 12th Sunday after Trinity

Reflection with readings below

It is with Wisdom that God created world. Wisdom is following God’s commandments. It is with Wisdom that people gain understanding. But Wisdom is still about choice. We are not automatically filled with Wisdom, we are not programmed to unvaryingly follow Wisdom. There is always the opposite figure, that of Folly which we may pursue. Indeed later in chapter 9 of Proverbs, we come across Golly inviting people to step aside into her house!

Throughout the Bible there is alway choice. The choice to follow God or ignore God. To do what is right or to do what is wrong. To choose what is life giving or what is life-defeating. Adam and Eve make choices. Noah makes a choice. Abraham makes a choice. The people of Israel make a choice. Those who hear the cry of John the Baptist make a choice. Those who believe in Jesus make a choice. Yet the choices we make are not unalterable. If we find we have made a bad choice, we can repent, turn round and make a better choice – as the parable of the prodigal son so colourfully explains.

In today’s first reading we have a dinner invitation. The description of Wisdom preparing the meal, and sending out her invitation to would-be guests sounds very similar to a couple of Jesus’s parables about people preparing sumptuous feasts and then sending out the invitations to the guests. How one receives the invitation becomes the process of judgement. Those who seek a good life, who seek peace and happiness – who seek God’s kingdom – are the ones who accept the invitation positively. Those who turn aside to enter Wisdom’s house have made the right choice; by eating and drinking the meal she has prepared, they internalise Wisdom.

The psalmist also reminds us to make the right choice: “Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” And suggests that our approach to God should be one of fear – or as we might phrase it – one of awe. Both awe and fear can sharpen our senses, prompting us to seek out and make the right choices – and not to be lackadaisical. The writer to the Ephesians suggests ways in which we can live our lives wisely and fully – singing songs and praises, giving thanks for everything in the name of Jesus. In other words responding positively to all that God offers us – and thus we will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

It all sounds so very simple and yet we can find it such a hard discipline to stick to. Is being wise simple or complicated? Is shaping our lives according to God’s will straightforward or difficult? Is becoming one with Jesus easy or ever so tricky?

If we look back over John’s Gospel we see that for some people the decision to follow Jesus was so simple. Andrew realises straight away that Jesus is the Messiah. Philip too follows him without any hesitation, and when Nathaniel meets him, he straightway recognises him as the Son of God. But then we have people like Nicodemus, teacher and leader of the Jews. He cannot get his intellectual mind around who Jesus is and how one might enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus cannot understand how things can be both earthly and heavenly, how there might be such a fluid interconnection between heaven and earth.

Spiritual food cannot be separated from physical food. Physical food cannot be set aside from spiritual food. We cannot just be satisfied by eating physical bread – we need to understand it spiritually. There is nothing we eat that does not ultimately come from God who is the creator of all things. We need to acknowledge that in giving thanks to God. But neither will we be satisfied with just an intangible spirituality. When we seek the spiritual we need the groundedness of things physical. Baptism comes in the medium of water and the spirit. The Eucharist comes in the medium of bread and wine as well the medium of Christ’s flesh and blood.

And we can chose to accept Jesus’s invitation to share the bread that is his body and the wine that is his blood, as a simple gift – or we can choose to convert it into a complicated conundrum, one which then allows us to create barriers and exclude others.

As we prepare to eat and drink the gift of Jesus, we will remember that all that we have – both physical and spiritual – is a gift from God and that is is only with what God gives us, that we can return our thanks. And this perhaps brings is back to where we began – with Wisdom. Through choosing that invitation, by entering that house and following that way of life, we can live the way God wishes – Wisdom that calls us to care for the earth, for all that God has created, to use and share it wisely with one another, to live simply so that all may simply live.

Let us take that wisdom into every aspect of our lives this week and see how it changes the way we treat others, the way we buy and sell, make and take, give and share, teach and listen, sing and give thanks – to the glory of God the Father and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. He

Proverbs 9:1-6

Wisdom has built her house,
she has hewn her seven pillars.
She has slaughtered her animals, she has mixed her wine,
she has also set her table.
She has sent out her servant-girls, she calls
from the highest places in the town,
“You that are simple, turn in here!”
To those without sense she says,
“Come, eat of my bread
and drink of the wine I have mixed.
Lay aside immaturity, and live,
and walk in the way of insight.”

Psalm 34:9-14

9 Fear the Lord, you that are his saints, *
for those who fear him lack nothing.

10 The young lions lack and suffer hunger, *
but those who seek the Lord lack nothing that is good.

11 Come, children, and listen to me; *
I will teach you the fear of the Lord.

12 Who among you loves life *
and desires long life to enjoy prosperity?

13 Keep your tongue from evil-speaking *
and your lips from lying words.

14 Turn from evil and do good; *
seek peace and pursue it.

Ephesians 5:15-20

Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 6:51-58

Jesus said, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Taste and see – God is good!

17th August 2024

O taste and see that the Lord is good Psalm 34:8a

You Lord, are the source of all good things:

We praise you.

You call us to tend and care for your creation:

May we strive to do your will.

You have made us as brothers and sisters with all that lives:

May we live together in peace.

A reading from Isaiah 55:1-3 (The Message translation)

Hey there! All who are thirsty,
    come to the water!
Are you penniless?
    Come anyway—buy and eat!
Come, buy your drinks, buy wine and milk.
    Buy without money—everything’s free!
Why do you spend your money on junk food,
    your hard-earned cash on cotton candy?
Listen to me, listen well: Eat only the best,
    fill yourself with only the finest.
Pay attention, come close now,
    listen carefully to my life-giving, life-nourishing words.
I’m making a lasting covenant commitment with you,
    the same that I made with David: sure, solid, enduring love.

A response:

Listen; attune your ears – what do you hear?

The excited chatter of children,

and the chatter of jackdaws,

wind rustling the leaves,

and feet tapping the road.

Or the drone of cars – too much!

Or the whine of planes – too many!

Look; focus your vision – what do you see?

a lacework of branches against the sky,

and curvaceous clouds,

tawny shades of fallen leaves,

and the tight curl of a snail shell.

Or traffic crawling bumper to bumper – too much

Or discarded tatters of plastic – too many!

Stretch; bare your skin – what do you feel?

The warm caress of the sun,

the chilly nip of the breeze,

the prickle of grass,

the textured bark of a tree

Or the rasp of exhaust in your throat – too much!

Or the scratch of particulates in your eyes – too many!

Sniff; breathe deeply – what do you smell?

The aroma of fresh coffee,

and the zest of orange juice,

the fragrance of the last rose,

and the warmth of ground spices.

Or the reek of petrol – too much!

Or the sting of pesticides – too many!

Savour; let it linger on your tongue – what do you taste?

The fresh acidity of an apple,

and the earthy satisfaction of bread,

the squashy sweetness of banana,

and the melting delight of chocolate.

Or the fake sweetness of green wash – too much!

Or the gall of climate injustice- too many !

Merciful God,

bring us to our senses.

Help us rebuild a world

of right experiences.

Amen.

Counting on … day 150

16th August 2024

There is a movement called ‘We are Nature’ (1) which aims to redefine the word ‘nature’. Dictionary definitions of nature define nature as being other than what is human. This setting apart appears assumes that that which is human is superior,more important, than nature, and thus to undervalue nature. The definition this group is looking to introduce would be along the lines of “The living world comprised as the total set of organisms and relationships between them. These organisms include bacteria, fungi, plants and animals (including humans). Some definitions may also include non-living entities as part of nature – such as mountains, waterfalls and cloud formations – in recognition of their important role underpinning the web of life.” This one comes from The Conversation – https://theconversation.com/a-new-campaign-wants-to-redefine-the-word-nature-to-include-humans-heres-why-this-linguistic-argument-matters-229338

If we see humans as being integral to, and not separate from, nature then how will that affect our understanding of what is a natural environment? For surely by this new definition a natural,

environment is not necessarily an environment free from a human presence or influence? Might a natural environment be better defined then as an environment in which there is a harmonious – long lived? – numerically rich biodiversity?

(1) https://wearenature.org/our-story/

Counting on … day 149

15th August 2024

Rewilding describes the process of recreating or restoring natural environments where nature is given a helping hand – for example by introducing a small number of pigs or cattle to replicate the activities of their wild forebears. In this way the hope is to allow the natural environment to recover the form it would have had before being reshaped by humans. Notable examples include the Knepp Estate but also less well known ones such as Ennerdale in the Lake District and the Sussex Kelp Recovery Project – ocean and sea beds are just as much in need of restoration as natural environments.

Counting on … day 148

14th August 2024

Whilst not pristine, are there other environments where the impact of humans is minimal such that we can consider them to be natural? Perhaps here we mean a landscape or ecosystem shaped by nature not humans? Perhaps we mean a landscape that was once shaped by humans but has now reverted to one free of human contact?

One such example would be Monks Wood Experimental Station – a four hectare arable field next to a research station which was ploughed after the last crop had been harvested and was then abandoned. It was left without any human interference to see what would happened. Kenneth Mellanby, the then director of the Station, wrote “It might be interesting to watch what happens to this area if man does not interfere. Will it become a wood again, how long will it take, which species will be in it?”

Sixty years later and the results can be seen – “a structurally complex woodland with multiple layers of tree and shrub vegetation, and accumulating deadwood as the habitat ages. This complexity offers niches for a wide variety of woodland wildlife, from fungi and invertebrates in the dead logs and branches, to song thrushes, garden warblers and nuthatches which nest in the ground layer, understorey and tree canopy.” https://www.positive.news/environment/rewilding-sixty-years-ago-scientists-let-a-farm-rewild-heres-what-happened/

Counting on … day 147

13th August 2024

How to define a natural environment

Is it an environment untouched by human influence? This is typically referred to as a pristine environment. Are there any such places on earth?

On the one hand, given the way that, for example, the effects of climate change are universally felt across the earth, or the presence of micro plastics which are now to be found in the depths of the ocean, on mountain peaks, in icecaps, and even in the blood of living creatures, the answer would be no. If in the other hand we mean free from the physical presence of humans and their impact, then yes – a few.

And it is that second approach that allows many researchers to agree with “a definition of pristine that includes habitats free from obvious signs of human activity. Those places should also contain plant and animal species that experts would expect to be there in the absence of hunting, logging, habitat loss, invasive species and other human-driven threats.”

And yes in parts of north eastern South America, in parts of Indonesia, in parts of the Congo, in parts of the polar regions, there are still some pristine environments.

(1) https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160208-theres-no-such-thing-as-truly-pristine-nature-anymore