Ecospirit: Religions and Philosophies for the Earth

Talking the Walk: A Practice-Based Environmental Ethicas Grounds for Hope

 Talking the Walk: A PracticeBased Environmental Ethic as Grounds for Hope A N N A L . P E T E R S O N INTRODUCTION Environmental issues consistently rank near the top of people’s concerns. Surveys indicate that as many as four out of five Americans consider themselves to be environmentalists. Environmental values have become mainstream, permeating politics, education, religion, and popular culture in myriad ways.1 This awareness and concern, however, do not automatically correspond to changes in behavior. While 80 percent of Americans may identify as environmentalists, fewer than one in five regularly participate in environmentally responsible activities such as recycling, reducing personal consumption, supporting green businesses, eliminating waste and pollution, or engaging in environmental activism. As many ‘‘green’’ practices have stagnated or even declined since the onset of the mass environmental movement in the 1970s, ecologically destructive behavior has climbed exponentially in the same period, as measured in terms of fossil-fuel consumption, raw-resource consumption, expanding homesize , and population shifts to the suburbs.2 Political behavior follows a similar pattern of expressed concern tied to little or no practical action. More than 70 percent of U.S. survey respondents say they have never voted for or against a political candidate based on his or her environmental views or record. An October 2005 poll conducted by Duke University, for example, found that while 79 percent of respondents favored ‘‘stronger national standards to protect our land, air, and water,’’ only 22 percent said environmental concerns have played 46 兩 e c os p i ri t a major role in determining whom they voted for in recent federal, state, or local elections.3 Candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on ‘‘moral’’ issues such as abortion, gay rights, and gun control appear to influence voters much more than environmental issues. (Especially since the November 2004 elections in the United States, a number of progressives have called for a ‘‘reframing’’ of environmental issues as matters of ‘‘morality’’ and ‘‘values,’’ although the success of these efforts remains to be seen.) The gap between environmental ideas and practices also appears in religious life and organization, identified by both scholars and activists as a crucial arena in the struggle for more ecologically sustainable ways of living. Many spiritual and environmental leaders have asserted that ecological destruction is a spiritual crisis, the resolution of which demands a new understanding and valuation of nonhuman nature.4 This volume itself, which reflects more than three decades of theological work in articulating ecological theology, marks a significant contribution toward that goal. The call for a ‘‘greening of religion’’ has been met with a proliferation of ‘‘green’’ religious statements, conferences, and documents in the past decade or two, from a wide range of traditions, including Roman Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism, historic Protestant denominations as well as ‘‘new age’’ spiritual groups. Despite an apparent consensus that religion must play a central role in building a more environmentally sustainable society, religious organizations and individuals have achieved few tangible results. In some cases, to be sure, principles have been implemented, usually by particular congregations or action groups. One of the most sustained and large-scale efforts has been the Environmental Justice Working Group (EJWG) of the National Council of Churches (NCC) (see Laurel Kearns’s contribution to the present volume ). Despite the time, energy, and resources that have been dedicated to initiatives such as this, however, it is far from clear that significant numbers of individuals and congregations affiliated with the NCC have reduced their energy consumption, or indeed changed their environmental practices in significant ways. In other words, even when religious groups make environmental issues a priority and devote resources to developing environmental values, these values do not automatically generate a significant transformation of members’ behavior. a n na l . pe t e rs o n 兩 47 In sum, there is strong evidence in favor of two apparently contradictory truths. First, most people want a clean and safe environment, with abundant habitat for nonhuman species and wild places in addition to livable human settlements. Second, this valuation of the natural world is not always, and maybe not usually, reflected in people’s personal consumption practices or political choices. There seems to be, in other words, little if any causal relationship between environmental value orientations , awareness, and concern, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other.5 In this...