The Fierce Urgency of Now

Martin Luther King Jr. stood in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial 50 years ago and compelled a nation to examine its conscience and, at long last, take action against the injustices of his time. America, he said, could no longer afford the luxury of administering itself "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism," but, rather, recognize "the fierce urgency of now."

A half a century later, many believe that the most enduring aspect of Dr. King's sermon was its optimism. Although he was extremely critical of white America for that defaulted check, he said he "refused to believe that the bank of justice was bankrupt.” As bleak as the future may have appeared at the time, he saw only promise.

There are many issues, mishaps and calamities that arise on a day-to-day basis, both domestically and internationally, that tax our ability to embrace optimism the way that Dr. King did. It truly appears to be a gift that either consoles the unenlightened or energizes the informed. Either way, it appears to work for some.

A few weeks ago I watched from my perch as another storm of epic proportions devastated the Philippines with the fury of its unyielding power and overwhelming wrath. A reminder, maybe, that Mother Nature was giving us yet another nudge.

The Suzuki Foundation, among others, have proposed in recent years that an increase in global average temperatures greater than 2 C above pre-industrial levels will result in further melting of glaciers and Arctic ice, continued rising sea levels, more frequent and extreme weather events, difficulties for global agriculture and changes in plant and animal life, including extinctions. Scientist from all over the world are saying that we'll likely exceed that threshold soon unless we choose to act now.

This means a strong, concerted global effort to combat climate change is necessary to protect the health of our economies, our communities, our children and our future. That will cost us, but the price will be far less than doing nothing. Governments of almost 200 countries agree that global average temperature increases must be kept below 2 C to avoid catastrophic warming. Research indicates it's possible to limit warming below that threshold if far-reaching action is taken.

The reasons to act go beyond averting the worst impacts of climate change, according to The Suzuki Foundation. Fossil fuels are an incredibly valuable resource that can be used for making everything from medical supplies to computer keyboards. Extracting them in haste to satisfy corporate greed and balance government budgets and wastefully burning them to propel everything from a chainsaw to a SUV will inevitably ensure we run out sooner rather than later. The resource is neither endless nor renewable.

Working collectively to meet “science-based” (as opposed to industry-based) targets to cut global warming pollution and create clean, renewable energy solutions will allow us to use our remaining fossil fuel reserves more wisely and create lasting jobs and economic opportunities.

Shifting to cleaner energy sources to minimize fossil fuel consumption will also reduce pollution and the environmental damage that comes with extracting coal, oil and gas and, subsequently, improve the health of people, communities and ecosystems.

Some of the leading environmental scientists of our time have been telling us for years that there is no time to delay. Governments and industry have been telling us for years to relax and not worry. Unprecedented environmental destruction in countries like Japan, Haiti, the Philippines and the United States is a clear sign that the clock is speeding up.

Globally, to keep global temperature levels below 2 C, fossil fuel extraction and consumption will have to be reduced by 60-80%. Not a plausible option for governments and oil companies who are interested in the here and now. Definitely not an option for Middle Eastern countries that control in excess of 80% of global reserves.

Such a reduction will inevitably have a short-term economic impact on an oil-producing province like ours but a positive impact on the environment overall. On the upside, it could mean longer-term sustainability for newly discovered reserves that normally have a short-term lifespan. After all, what is the hurry?

My question is somewhat rhetorical as you may have guessed. It is all about maximizing return on investment. Governments and industry, regardless of location, have an interest in the politics of profits as opposed to the practicality of environmental standards. 

It is in everyone’s best interest to pre-emptively embark on a revolutionary change that will lead the globe away from oil dependency rather than drag our feet and suffer the irrevocable ramifications of becoming dependent on a diminishing resource. Herein lies the problem, however…the reason for “the hurry”.

Heaven forbid, huh, that an Islander would shun the riches of the oil industry. Well, I am not, really…I am simply suggesting that we increase the shelf life of the resources that we have, strategically maximize the profit margins, and, subsequently, contribute in a more meaningful way to a greener planet.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said when asked why he could remain so optimistic with all the serious issues that he had seen in his life, he said, “I am not optimistic, I am simply a prisoner of hope.” I guess we can all relate to that.