“Only One Earth”

Imagine for a moment what happens to a tiny cluster of bacteria in the middle of a petri dish–the kind used in scientific laboratories. At first, the bacteria appear to grow slowly, but then they spread rapidly across the petri dish in a bacterial bloom. Once the petri dish is full, the bacteria begin to die off as they change the environment of the dish, using its nutrients and finally drowning in their own waste.

If we look at our planet Earth from outer space, there are already visible changes as something like that bacterial bloom seems to be occurring. Human life is exploding across the planet, rapidly using its resources and now spreading to the point that we are making changes to the environment of the whole planet, from its oceans to its atmosphere. Are we simply doomed to to destroy the environment for life on this planet, drowning in our own waste, or is there long-term hope for life on Earth, including human life?

A clear view of the future will always be shrouded from our eyes, for it will be shaped by choices not yet made, by processes already underway that we do not fully understand, and by surprises we cannot anticipate. Still, there are some things we know.

We know that human life is having an impact on the environment of the Earth, from destruction of habitats and extinction of many species to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the dispersal of toxic chemicals on land and in water. The science of global warming is much more solid than the popular press would have us believe; there is much about the local impacts of global warming that we cannot know, but there is a broad scientific consensus and growing evidence for the notion that our emissions of carbons and other greenhouse gases are warming the Earth, and will continue to affect climate for a long time to come. Rising sea levels, melting icecaps, changes in rainfall, and other changes that are hard to predict are very likely in the century ahead. The places most affected are countries such as Bangladesh and remote island nations, while the country most responsible is clearly the United States. With less than five percent of the world’s population, we produce about 25% of the world’s carbon emissions.

We know that global population is growing rapidly, at a rate of increase of about a million people every five days. As destructive and tragic as the Indian Ocean tsunami was in December, in terms of world population, it only set back global population growth by about eighteen hours. Most of the population growth is in countries such as Afghanistan, India, and a number of African nations, and there is much suffering and environmental degradation as a result, but in terms of use of resources or emission of greenhouse gases, one additional person in the United States has more impact than dozens in some of those countries. We know that this rapid use of resources and rapid population growth will eventually come to an end–it is just a question of when and how, either by reaching some form of sustainable balance or by some form of catastrophe.

We know that our way of life today is not sustainable indefinitely, and that it would be impossible right now for all the people of the world to live as we do here. Resources from oil to fresh water are limited, and as more countries develop along the lines of our economic model, the strain on the Earth will only grow. In a few decades, for example, the biggest piece in the global puzzle may end up being what happens in China, where almost one out of six people in the world live, and where an enormous economic transformation is underway. We should be careful about thinking we can ignore or bully the world, because American dominance may not last as long as we think, and it always feels different when the shoe is on the other foot.

One other thing we know is that there is enormous potential and a great deal at stake in the human experiment on Earth. We are not bacteria; we are intelligent beings of worth and dignity, with feelings and dreams and relationships. We can foresee some of the consequences of our actions and do something about it–and sometimes we have--even though our knowledge is limited and our solutions to problems sometimes create new ones. Life on Earth is a tremendously complex, non-linear system. And life on this planet is unlike anything we have found so far anywhere else in the universe. There is a staggering beauty and diversity in the forests and the coral reefs, in the bizarre life forms of the deep ocean and in fragile, scrappy alpine flowers. Human life, with our ability to learn and to love and to create, is a relative newcomer to this planet. We must remember that in this planetary experiment, if the results are bad, we can’t throw out the petri dish and start over again. There is only one Earth.

Our Unitarian Universalist Principles and Sources call us to respect the web of existence of which we are a part. They call us to learn from Earth-centered traditions, and they call us to heed the results of science as well. Few if any other religious traditions call for these commitments so explicitly. Now, heeding the results of science is hard enough to do when you take into account the complexity of the world, the constant growth and change in scientific understanding, the frequent manipulation of science by political and corporate interests, and the unintended consequences of some of our technologies and scientific solutions. These difficulties are enough.

But on top of that, we live in a nation where many people have little interest in either the web of life or in heeding the results of science in the first place–a country where more people believe in the rapture than in evolution. When Bill Moyers was given a Global Environmental Citizen Award a few months ago, he delivered an eloquent address that expressed his alarm at the political influence of the idea of the rapture. As Moyers points out, “A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, ...and you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as [the journal] Grist puts it, ‘to worry about the environment. Why care about the Earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible, [to be welcomed, maybe even encouraged]? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture?’”

Besides religious barriers, other obstacles to caring about the web of life or heeding the results of science include powerful economic and political interests that are often structured to put short-term profits or power above all else. And we must not forget that we ourselves are deeply embedded in a way of life that is unsustainable but also very difficult to change. I thought about that as I drove my gasoline-fueled car here this morning to preach this sermon.

So, if the problems facing the Earth are so deep, why make the effort? Why not just give up and let the chips fall where they may? I think there is a basic existential question here. We know the world really will end some day. But before that, there ought to be billions of years ahead for life on Earth. We are only here because of the unbroken chain of life that came before us. What unknown potential is there for life in the future? To celebrate the Earth and the miracle of life, to care about the future, other people, and other forms of life, is a core source of spiritual growth and meaning for our lives. To withdraw our love from the Earth or to give up because the problems are so great is to die spiritually even before we die physically. When I think about my six- and nine-year-old boys, or when I think about some of the places in nature that are sacred to me–the Ding Darling nature preserve in Florida, and the Indian Peaks where I first learned about the mountains–I know that what happens to the Earth does matter to me. I believe we have a moral responsibility to future generations. To follow our principles and to strive for a better future for the Earth, its environment and its inhabitants–that’s what I would call a true “culture of life.”

So what can we do? There is plenty we can do to make a difference, from the very personal to the global. One place to start is reduction of carbon emissions, as described in the insert in your order of service today, produced by our Green Sanctuary Task Force. Most of these actions don’t even cost anything financially–they save money. It is probably true that the process of global warming will continue for 100 years even if we stopped all carbon emissions today. But this is not a reason not to act–do we just want to make it worse? It’s also more meaningful and more fun to act together than to act alone. And then there are other things, too, that we can do for the environment both individually and together, from studying voluntary simplicity to recycling and eating in more sustainable ways.

As good as all these actions are, however, they are still not enough. Some things can only be addressed at a broader policy level, and advocacy for environmentally friendly policies is essential if real progress is to be made. Fortunately, we live in the country where environmental advocacy can make the biggest difference. It ought to be an area of moral and political strength for our liberal movement, and we should build on that. This means supporting energy policies that conserve energy and seriously promote energy alternatives, instead of waiting until as much carbon as possible is squeezed from the Earth and spewed into the atmosphere. There are some difficult tradeoffs involved, especially with nuclear power, but we should at least be expanding aggressively into developing more efficient wind and solar power. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is not only an environmental issue, by the way; it is also an issue of peace, security, and economic stability.

Especially given our place in the world, we must push for global institutions and agreements that are structured for the survival and good of life, not merely for the profits of multinational corporations. At the very least, we should not be blocking global agreements on carbon emissions, or actively fighting family planning programs around the world. Ultimately, some of the deepest changes would require changing how we think about resources and economics, treating what economists call “externalities”in a different way in order to count the true cost of resource depletion and environmental impact. It is not necessary to vilify the whole business world in order to do this, and practical compromises are often necessary. But we must be honest about how our human enterprises affect the Earth.

One more thing we can do is to keep learning, to inform ourselves and to become more aware of what we do and how it connects to the web of life on Earth. There are ways to live more lightly on the Earth, even with more than six billion people, but it will take creativity and a willingness to learn, not only from cutting-edge science and technology but also by remembering lessons from civilizations we may have labeled as “primitive.” We must return to and reflect deeply and humbly upon our own principles. And if you wonder whether it is important to proclaim and share our Unitarian Universalist faith, just think what may happen to the Earth if our politics are left in the hands of people convinced that the rapture is coming soon. The power grab going on by the Religious Right in our country right now, especially with respect to our court system, is truly frightening. At the same time, we must not lump all Christians or all people of any religious group together simplistically. We have many allies in many religious traditions who care very much about justice and about the Earth, and we must be willing to work with all of them hand in hand.

I must add that the reason for all of this, for environmental concern and action, is not to assuage guilt or to feel morally superior. None of us, including myself, will do all the things I have mentioned today. Life is too complex and real for that. The environmental lens is only one of the important ways to see the world; there are many other important lenses, of economic justice and human rights, of family and work responsibilities, personal spiritual growth and much more. Whatever we do environmentally, each step is worth taking, even if it is small. The goal is never self-deprivation for its own sake, but the desire to give the gift of celebrating the miracle of life to many future generations, shaped by our knowledge that something will have to change if intelligent life is to survive for a long time on the Earth.

We should savor the Earth even as we work to save it, because caring about the Earth begins with a love for life and for this one-of-a-kind, amazing planet. Find the places in nature, even small ones in your daily life, that nurture your spirit. There can even be joy in living more simply, and in attuning our lives more closely to the Earth from which we come. Even genuine sacrifices will not feel like such sacrifices when we understand why they are needed, and acting together as part of a community is more powerful, more fun, and more fulfilling. On this Earth Sunday, let us commit ourselves to try not to end the experiment of life on this planet prematurely.

As Bill Moyers said in his Global Environmental Citizen Award acceptance speech, “The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story.... What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.”