The Dalai Lama’s planet

The Economist

The Dalai Lama’s planet

Full Article Source

WHEN religious leaders speak out on matters of global policy, they often stick to lofty generalities and avoid making direct challenges to those who wield earthly power. Not so this week. In the space of barely 24 hours, Donald Trump and his perceived indifference to environmental concerns were the object of stern rebukes from two spiritual champions. One was the Dalai Lama, who was visiting one of his favourite charities (Children in Crossfire, which helps kids in war zones), based in Northern Irelands second city, known officially as Derry-Londonderry. Asked if he had a message to send to Mr Trump, he replied, His view about ecology...he does not consider it important, and with that I disagree. The Tibetan spiritual leader added, Now I think America is learning lessons on the importance of ecology...on the east coast, floods, and on the west coast, [forest] fires. The most industrialised nation and the leading nation of the free world should [have] more respect regarding ecology. The Dalai Lama said Americas withdrawal from the Paris climate accord made him quite sad. He was particularly concerned by the threat to the snows of the Tibetan plateau, one of the earths natural water tables, which are sometimes said to be as ecologically sensitive as the two polar regions. An almost equally open reprimand, whose context made the meaning perfectly clear, was issued by Pope Francis as he spoke to reporters on a flight home from Colombia to Rome. A journalist, who pointed out that the aircraft had flown near the path of Hurricane Irma and the areas it had devastated, asked whether any moral responsibility lay with politicians who refused to collaborate with global efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Francis replied, Whoever denies this should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly. The scientists are precise...Climate change, you see the effects and scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. And all of us have a responsibility,...a little one, a big one, a moral responsibility...and we have to take it seriously. The pontiff said he had been struck by news reports that whole swathes of the Arctic were becoming navigable as the ice melted, and by the warning from at least one leading scientist that humanity had three years to change course or face irreversible disaster. Against this sombre background, he said, history will judge whether the right decisions were taken. Because of both leaders high personal stature, their reprimands will be taken seriously. But doubtless there will be a segment of listeners who respond that, precisely because they pertain to worldly and material matters, such pronouncements are not binding on the faithful. Among such peole may be Stephen Bannon, a former White House adviser who is a devout Catholic but has sharply attacked the leaders of his church on the question of immigration, accusing them of favouring unlimited entry into the country as a way of filling their own pews. He sees no contradiction. Although he could totally respect the authority of Catholic bishops when they speak on issues of religious doctrine, he has said he feels free to disagree with the prelates about practical matters that have nothing to do with doctrine. Is the fate of the earth a practical matter or a doctrinal one? Well, that in itself is a doctrinal question.