Lucky Obasuyi – My Take Home from the People’s Assembly on Climate Justice
Saturday, November 17, 2018, at the University of Toronto, Multi Faith Center

Genesis 2:15 (ESV) – “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it”

This scripture is a great starting point to share my reflections from the People’s Assembly on Climate Justice. It is my hope that this scripture, gleaned from the book of beginnings, lends credence to the criticalness of caring for our environment: a sacred responsibility bequeathed to humankind by the creator of all. It’s unequivocally true that manufacturers best know the optimal use of the products they create, as well as the due diligence that consumers must show in order for them to derive optimal benefits. Let us then listen with ears to hear.

Attending the People’s Assembly was truly a heart stirring event for me, because it challenged me to deliberately reflect on how well humankind has fared in the responsibility handed us by the creator; “to work and keep the garden of earth”.

As a participant in the group considering Labor and Economics as it relates to Climate Justice, it was rather more instructive for me to listen to the various contributors as they shared passionately about their concerns on current positions being taken by decision makers in government vis-a-vis the Canadian environment, and how that impacts the fight for Climate Justice. For a relative newcomer to Canada, the succinctly articulated expositions by the guest speakers and very informed contributions from other group participants quickly metamorphosed into a valuable education for me.

Some Labor and Economics group members had the opportunity to share about their individual activities in the fight for Climate Justice within the Ontario community. That of ‘$15 and Fairness’ particularly got me riveted, as it afforded me a basic knowledge of the issues that advocates of ‘$15 and Fairness’ seek to address e.g. $15/hr. minimum wage and climate justice; equal pay, fair scheduling and job security for all; the right to organize/unionize sustainable workplaces.

Other members in the group were part of the Toronto District School Board, and shared about how they are maximizing that platform to drive their passion for climate justice, especially via their classroom opportunities as school teachers.

Another salient fact that was revelatory to me, was the functioning of a conservative ideology towards maximizing economic gains, generating inevitable decisions that adversely affect climate stability, and thus constitute a bane in the fight for Climate Justice.

Overall, my take-home from the Climate Justice Assembly and from participating in the Labor and Economics group discussion, was the challenge to take sides with those seeking to proffer panaceas, rather than accentuate the problem. It was indeed, a clarion call to re-awakening the responsibility “to work and to keep the garden of earth” as the LORD God originally commanded humankind in the beginning!

I close with scripture to reflect on the consequences of abdicating our sacred responsibility to the creation:

Isaiah 24:5-6 (ESV) – “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left”

Lucky Obasuyi joined the global Student Christian Movement (SCM) in 2009 via the SCM of Nigeria. He has held several positions with the SCM of Nigeria, including Director of International and Interfaith Relations. He is currently the Secretary of the SCM of Nigeria, North America Chapter, and a Ministry Intern with SCM Canada.

Straw Wars: The One Time Disabled People are NOT Told to Suck It Up

Tim de Visser explores the oppressive elements in environmentalist initiatives that ignore the lives of people with disabilities.

For the last couple of months, there’s been talk of a ban on plastic straws, or even all single-use plastics. The impetus was simple: plastic waste is a real cause of suffering and death for marine animals, and a threat to the general sustainability of life on earth. Its production is a major factor in carbon emissions. No one is arguing that point (save for industrialists and their cronies). But there was a group speaking out against the ban that is often overlooked in these kinds of discussions. With the power of social media, they’ve made themselves heard: disabled people.

You see, when you have limited or no control over the muscles in your mouth or hands (or you don’t have the latter), drinking can be a hassle. Virtually the only way to drink unaided from a cup can be a bendable straw, which are currently made from plastic. Re-usable metal straws or compostable bamboo straws will benefit some people, but for others, their pointiness can be a hazard. Plastic straws are cheap and readily available everywhere, meaning that it is one of those accessibility concerns that rarely take a second thought. A ban on plastic straws would change that. And people with palsy, spinal damage and Parkinson’s disease were not shutting up about it. Some commenters were less than sympathetic to their concerns.

I’ve seen commenters on Facebook write things like ‘I’m not going to kill the planet for the convenience of some disabled people’. This sentiment ignores firstly that drinking unaided is not a ‘convenience’ but a source of dignity and a material need for most of us, and secondly that while the impact of plastic straws is easy to personalize, they are hardly ‘what’s killing the planet’. 46% of the infamous ‘Trash Island’ is composed of fishing nets. But so far, the fishing industry hasn’t had to deal with a ban.

This kerfuffle may be the first time that disabled people have made a noticeable impact on an environmental debate. The pattern is typical though: a lot of environmentalism puts the burden of saving the planet disproportionately on the poor and disabled. This is not usually the result of malice, but rather ignorance (although persistent and, as in the example above, sometimes willful). Environmentally sustainable products and solutions often require more human power, time and money to use; resources that the rich and abled simply have more of.

Interestingly, the poor and disabled rarely get credit for all the environmentally destructive behavior they can not engage in if they even wanted to. Not driving a car or flying a plane is only considered an admirable sacrifice for the environment if you have the option of doing those things. But if you can’t do those things, and you also need a plastic straw to drink? Or you can barely afford food, let alone sustainably produced items? Or you don’t have the free time, money or hand-eye coordination to forgo any other convenient, cheap, ‘wasteful’ products? Then it seems that some environmentalists will blame you personally for the destruction of the earth. Or at least completely disregard your needs.

On balance, carbon footprint and negative impact on the environment correlate with wealth. Rich people are not only usually more wasteful than poor people (because they can afford to be, and live in places where the effects of that waste are not as noticeable), they also by definition have more control over the industries and regulations that truly govern the amount of pollution, overconsumption and waste that ruin the environment. This is how places like Europe can enjoy a higher standard of luxury while still having stricter environmental and labour regulation than other places: we’ve outsourced the social and environmental costs to Asia, Africa and South America.

Food waste is a political problem. Carbon emissions are a political problem. Child labour is a political problem. These are not personal moral problems that you can disinvest from and be done with it, judging everyone else.

The market will not ever solve these problems. They are a result of the market: they are byproducts of policies that are very profitable to rich and powerful people who can avoid these negative consequences. The market will only succeed in hiding the issue, usually by relocating to a poorer place and some good marketing. The true solution will only come from a sense that we as a global community need to reorganize the way we produce and distribute goods and services.

Small tasks are things like changing the rules about food waste so that corporations can’t just deliberately throw food away if they could just as easily give it to starving people. Possibly setting up a distribution system to make that happen. Maybe disincentivize overproduction by farmers by changing or scrapping subsidies. Making companies that use forced or inhumane labour practices criminally liable. I say small, but they will make a lot of rich people much less rich, and that is going to make it hard, but not complicated.

Larger tasks include: how to transition to an economy that is not dependent on fossil fuels while minimizing the opportunity for massive poverty and violence. What are some alternative ways to produce energy and deal with waste? If there aren’t any feasible options to maintain current levels of consumption, who has to sacrifice what? If we let the market decide, we already know the answer. And it will not affect everyone equally.

The inevitability that our current way of life is going to become impossible means that we have to think of new ways of life not just as individuals, but as a society. It would be really nice if it did not rely on everybody spending more money, and doing more stuff by hand. Not all of us have money. Not all of us have hands*.

Tim de Visser is a white, straight, cis male. And that’s all he has going for him. He’s also disabled (from birth), mentally ill (from growing up), and underemployed (for now). He’s worked as a freelance journalist and studied philosophy at Utrecht University, specializing in political philosophy and ethics. He’s not like the other Atheists.

*for the record: I have both. That is not the point.