Buddhist Contributions to Climate Response

Stephanie KazaT

HIS paper is an exploration through a Buddhist lens of the deeply
challenging topic of climate change. I briefly review the impacts ofclimate change, framing the discussion in terms of people and places
already suffering from climate crises. My focus then turns to the
disturbing questions, why aren’t people more concerned? and how has
climate denial become normalized? I suggest that climate denial
represents an environmental privilege for those in the developed world,
fueled by polarized worldviews. Well-known figures in the West such as
Al Gore and Bill McKibben insist that we (and particularly those in thedeveloped world) have a moral responsibility to mitigate climate
suffering and work toward a sustainable future. While most climate
discussions are framed primarily in scientific terms, a growing body ofresearch looks at the social and psychological aspects of climate change.
In this context, I investigate an ethical role for Buddhism in addressing
climate denial through Buddhist teachings and practices. As skillfulmeans, these contributions can be helpful to a wide range of people, notjust those who consider themselves Buddhist. I suggest that nonharming, compassion, mindfulness, and other accessible Buddhist principles can provide the foundation for a climate ethic based on true understanding of human interdependence with climate systems.

1. Climate Change Impacts
To set the stage for this discussion, I look briefly at the nature and scopeof climate change, pointing out the necessity for taking action.
Understanding climate change requires confronting both the complex
global biogeophysical systems and the limits to human adaptive
capacity. Though many still debate the consequences of global warming,
I argue here that we must be proactive with responsive action, drawing
on religious as well as scientific resources.
The physical predictions for climate change are well described andaccepted by climate scientists around the world. These are summarized73

74

buddhist contributions to climate responsein the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) released in April, 2014.1 The warming atmosphere has
already accelerated melt rates of ice shelves in the Arctic, Antarctica,
and Greenland. Glaciers in almost all mountain ranges of the world are
retreating rapidly, and thawing permafrost threatens to release unprecedented amounts of methane that would further accelerate climatechange. With warmer days and nights now a global trend, growing
seasons have shifted, encouraging pest migration into new forests andcroplands. Ocean waters are becoming gradually more acidic, thinningthe protective shells of many mollusks. Coral reef organisms have been
particularly hard hit by changing sea temperatures and harsh sun. On
both land and sea, species of all kinds are shifting their ranges, with
unpredictable consequences.
Climate models indicate that feedback from interlocking global
systems will generate unexpected impacts and irreversible changes.
Extreme weather events and climate-related disasters will become morecommon and generate widespread human suffering. Key economic
centers along the coasts are coping with sea level rise and associatedstorm and tide surges. Melting glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau are
causing flooding in many great Asian rivers, impacting people, croplands, cities, and ecosystems in East, South and Southeast Asia.2 In yetother areas of the world, rising temperatures are causing longer heatwaves, more extreme and hotter wildfires, and more severe long-term
droughts. Already people are migrating away from climate stressed
areas in search of new homes and livelihoods.3 City, state, and national
government budgets are being stretched beyond capacity by climaterelated disasters. In some areas, people face widespread famine, inothers, emotional stress and social chaos.
All predictions point to many more rough years as atmospheric levelsof carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide continue to rise. We now
know that even if we made significant changes to reduce these levels ofgreenhouse gases, human societies will still have to deal with theunfolding consequences of carbon that is already loaded into theatmosphere. Very quickly we are speaking of not just, as we say in
Buddhism, the suffering of 10,000 beings, but the suffering of a 100,000
tens of 10,000 beings.

2. Understanding Denial
The science of climate change has clearly entered the domain of public
discourse. Yet the scientific facts alone are not yet generating sufficientbuddhist contributions to climate response75

motivation for wide-scale global policy change. Political resistance has
blocked carbon tax proposals, carbon emission targets, and mitigation
planning for climate change impacts. It has become increasingly apparent that human behavior and attitudes are determining the direction ofplanetary climate, whether driven by greed, fear, or ignorance.
In June 2013 I attended one of a series of conferences held at
Garrison Institute in New York entitled “Climate, Mind and Behavior.”
This institute has taken up the mission of developing climate conversations among social scientists, particularly psychologists and sociologists. Because of the Institute’s spiritual orientation, they are also interested in a role for Buddhist perspectives. Panel sessions raised questions
such as: How will people manage the suffering generated by climatechange? How can professionals in psychology and social science help
cities, regions, and states find approaches that work? How do we understand “mitigation,” “adaptation,” and “resilience” as psychological andsocial concepts to complement the use of these terms in the naturalsciences?
Academic scholarship has increased rapidly in this area, with research
centers, curricula, and social psychological studies now finding criticalmass. At the University of Otago in New Zealand, for example, they are
studying energy cultures to determine how people make decisions abouttransportation choices, electricity use, and personal purchases. The
research program is tied to energy education programs to test and apply
results directly.4 Recent publications draw together studies from avariety of perspectives. The 2013 anthology, Engaging with Climate
Change, reports findings related to climate anxiety, apathy, despair,
uncertainty, and risk.5 A recent issue of the Journal of the Study ofReligion, Nature, Culture contributes papers linking religious perspectives to climate concerns and human behavior.6 Many studies raise thequestion: why are people not paying attention to climate change? Why
are they not galvanized into action? A number of theories have been
proposed; for example, a 2014 book by George Marshall is entitled:
Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore
Climate Change.7

2.1 Three Psychological Explanations
In order to consider Buddhist tools for working with climate denial, I
first review three common psychological explanations. These aresummarized in a Norwegian climate study by sociologist Kari Marie
Norgaard.8 The first explanation is known as the information deficit
model. In this model the assumption is that people do not know enough

76

buddhist contributions to climate response

to take action. If they knew more, they would respond with appropriate
steps to reduce impacts. This is an axiomatic tenet in most environmental (and climate) education. We assume that by providing people
with all the facts about climate change, they will then be motivated totake action. However, this proves not to be true. Psychologists describe
flawed mental frameworks that limit people’s ability to understand thescope of climate change. It turns out that knowledge in and of itself is
not nearly so motivating as emotional engagement. Studies show thateven well informed people may be paralyzed by too much knowledge ora sense that one’s personal actions will not really make a difference.9
Another body of literature describes the media’s role in highlighting
uncertainty and raising doubt about climate science. While this is due inpart to normative journalistic practices, it is also fueled by disinformation campaigns organized by climate change skeptics.10
The second explanation draws on what psychologists call cognitive
dissonance, that people are able to hold two completely conflicting waysof viewing things in their minds without impacting their daily lives. For
example, people observe and respond to short-term weather patterns andadapt to the current state: if it is a little hotter than usual, they wear
lighter clothing or turn up the air conditioning. If it is a little colder thanusual, they wear heavier clothing or turn up the heat. People makesimple behavioral adjustments all the time to manage their comfort
levels, usually understood as mechanisms for personal self-care. Climate
concerns are held in another part of the brain, the place of cognitive
learning in the cerebral cortex. According to this model, people canknow about the impacts of climate change but still act in everyday life
as if their actions had no relationship to climate change. As a generalrule, people tend to discount the risks of long-term impacts relative tomore immediate threats.
The third explanation focuses on emotional blocks limiting response
to climate change. There can be tremendous insecurity, fear, and anxiety
tied up with climate change predictions. It is, by now, a common media
sight to witness the terror and overwhelm from massive flooding due toclimate stress, or the despair and discouragement from extreme droughtin ranching country. Such emotional states reverberate empathicallybetween viewers and those caught in the climate cross hairs. We sense,
if even vaguely, that such a disaster could strike close to home and we,too, might experience such difficult and unpleasant emotional states.
Further, people in developed countries may feel a sense of helplessness
and guilt around global inequalities, a fear of being seen as a bad anduncaring person. Such difficult emotions are not easy to manage; no one

buddhist contributions to climate response77

really likes to experience these feeling states, especially when they areassociated with lack of personal control. For some, climate change may
generate an even broader ontological insecurity, a sense of threat to theentire continuity of life accompanied by a significant loss of meaning.11

2.2 Six Types of Psychological Response to Denial
Psychological response to climate change has been documented throughannual surveys conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust since 2009.
Based on these broad samples of adult climate response from across allstates in the U.S., researchers have described six psychological responsetypes they call the “Six Americas.”12 In order of increasing denial, theseare: “the alarmed,” “the concerned,” “the cautious,” “the disengaged,”“the doubtfuls,” and “the dismissive.”
The 16% identified as “the alarmed” (as of September 2012) believe
the facts presented by climate science and hold the greatest
understanding about global warming. This group is the most informed
and involved and also the most motivated. They are characterized byliberal political views and a belief in the effectiveness of government
action. The next 29%, “the concerned,” report some exposure and understanding of climate change and some degree of concern; they know thatsomething ought to be done but have few specific details. Over halfendorse a stewardship ethic related to care for God’s creation as relevant
to climate change. For the third group, the 21% labeled as “thecautious,” climate change is on their radar screen and they are starting totake note of it as an important phenomenon. Some may have learned
about climate change from their children sharing information fromschool. However, they are unlikely to take action because they tend to bepolitically or socially inactive.
The remaining 30% of the sample are more actively constructing
denial through their attitudes and actions or inaction. The “disengaged”(9%) have other pressing priorities and no extra energy for paying
attention beyond the primary needs for safety, food, water and shelter.
Those labeled “doubtfuls” (13%) aren’t sure they should even believe inclimate change. They are willing to take seriously the claims by climate
skeptics that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. The “dismissive”(8%) represents the relatively small number of people who are actively
working to discredit climate change. Many of these efforts are supported
by well-funded institutes, media corporations, and political advocacy.
Is there a relationship between religious perspectives and climate
perspectives? The surveys reveal clear affiliations between certain typesof religious identities and degrees of concern and motivation. Those on

78

buddhist contributions to climate response

the left end of the spectrum that show the most concern tend to be
associated with progressive or moderate religious values typical ofliberal Protestant denominations. Those on the right end of the spectrum
who show the least concern and greatest denial tend to be associatedwith evangelical or traditional religious beliefs. In general, correlations
reflect general religious values more than specific denominations. This
work offers some insight into the potential relationship between
religious belief systems and attitudes of denial toward climate change.

2.3 Mechanisms of Social Construction of Denial
To further understand the mechanisms that support denial, I turn toNorgaard’s in-depth study of climate perspectives in Norway. This yearlong ethnographic study engaged Norgaard in many aspects of social
life in this northern European country of highly educated and environmentally concerned people. Her findings indicate that climate attitudes
are not only personally held but are culturally constructed through social
norms and patterns. The work challenges the psychological explanations
discussed earlier that place the locus of denial entirely within theindividual. Because her case focus is a developed country, it suggests
there may be parallel norms operating in other developed countries suchas the United States, Japan, and Australia. It also raises the possibility
that one could identify social norms and attitudes in specific religious
traditions that favor the social construction of denial.
As described by Norgaard, Norwegians are highly engaged in theirlocal communities, politically active in local governance, socially activewith neighbors and peers, and physically active in the outdoors. They
could hardly be called apathetic. Norgaard observed several key factorsthat actively contributed to the social construction of denial.13 First she
noticed there were no appropriate social spaces for discussing climatechange. Political meetings focused on local concerns and governancequestions, often budget or policy issues. Climate change impacts were
simply too far away for local governance agendas. Recreational settings
also did not offer a place to discuss difficult issues such as climatechange. In these settings (the gym, the outdoors, the bar) people were
supposed to recover from life’s stresses and not talk about hard things.
In educational settings, teachers expressed the need to stay optimistic
for future generations, thus limiting discussion of climate impacts anduncertainty. In sum, the dominant and normative social settings actively
put constraints on what people could discuss.
Norgaard also pointed to Norwegian emotional norms that tend tofavor maintaining control, a norm that is also prevalent in the Unitedbuddhist contributions to climate response

79

States. She found three typical emotional responses to climate change.
First, it is common to take a “tough” attitude and not to show feelings ofpowerlessness and uncertainty, even if you are indeed experiencing
these emotional states. Second, it is important to “stay cool,” to not be
too serious about anything, but especially not something as monumental
as climate change. Third, it is important to “be smart.” If you want toengage climate change, then you need to be informed and have goodanswers for the challenges that lie before us. All three conversational
patterns favor maintaining a sense of personal control and avoiding a
sense of loss of control from facing the realities of climate change.
In all aspects of Norwegian social and conversation activity, Norgaard
found tremendous pressure to conform. Above all else, it was critical tomeet social standards to maintain standing in one’s social group. Thus it
was unacceptable to ask difficult big questions and appear to be the nailsticking up. It was much easier to learn no more than was necessary andto keep attention focused on more socially acceptable topics. Furthermore, for mental health, it was important to focus only on what one
person could do to be effective and keep a positive attitude toward life.
In sum, the everyday ingredients of social norm formation actively
supported the construction of denial. Her conclusion was that denial is
not an afterthought. It is a convenience, a construction, and perhaps evena privilege.14

2.4 Climate Denial as Privilege
The possibility that climate denial is a privilege raises moral and ethicalissues in the realm of environmental justice and equity. Human sufferingfrom climate change is far greater in the developing world than in thedeveloped world. Should not people with greater financial assets, education, and physical security be concerned for those who must face climatechange with far fewer resources? Norgaard suggests that “people
occupying privileged social positions encounter ‘invisible paradoxes’—
awkward, troubling moments they seek to avoid, pretend not to haveexperienced (often as a matter of social tact), and forget as quickly as
possible once those moments have passed.”15 Such paradoxes are
particularly acute in the arena of energy extraction and production.
Mountain top removal of coal, hydrologic fracking for methane, and tar
sands mining are now common, if extreme, methods for supplying everrising appetites for energy use in the developed world. They tend to takeplace in areas where local cultures have little say over the
impoverishment of their homelands. People in privileged socioeconomic
classes have almost no contact with these operations and their

80

buddhist contributions to climate response

destructive impacts on the environment. It is simpler to actively maintain a state of denial than to engage the moral complexities that arise in
confronting climate change. This is both cognitive dissonance in action
and socially constructed denial. We could call this an environmental
privilege of the developed world. Environmentally privileged people
thus reproduce existing power relations as they enact denial in everyday
life.

3. Buddhist Contributions to Climate Dialogue
I have been focusing on the role of denial in climate change because I
believe this offers an avenue where religions can work with climate
psychology and social values.		Before turning to Buddhism specifically,
let me review five key capacities relevant to climate action andorganized religion as identified by Gary Gardner.16 First, religions canengage their members, and for some denominations, this is a very large
number of people who may be influenced or educated by religious
positions. Second, religions can draw on moral authority to address
climate change. Such authority is held by religious leaders in all faiths,
as well as by respected religious texts. Third, religions provide meaningby shaping worldviews. A religious message or set of values related toprotecting the environment can provide a platform for discussing
climate change. Fourth, religions can use their physical and financial
resources strategically to encourage energy conservation, develop social
resilience, and make morally responsible investments. The cumulative
effect of such choices can have a significant impact, as evidenced by thecontributions of Interfaith Power and Light and the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility.17 Fifth, religious communities have tremendous potential for building social capital to respond to climate change.
Despite these advantageous capacities, religions may also present
barriers to taking up the challenges of climate change. Religious leaders
can be reluctant to discuss climate issues with their congregations, thus
unintentionally colluding with a certain level of social denial supportedby their congregations. The religious message may require greater
emphasis on salvation, on the ultimate personal religious goal rather
than on worldly goals. Sometimes religious organizations can be aggressively obstructive in their actions to maintain climate denial. This isclear in the Six Americas study that identifies a link between evangelicalbeliefs and active dismissal of the realities of climate change.
The 2013 issue of the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature,
Culture provides an overview of some of the actions that have beenbuddhist contributions to climate response81

taken by religious leaders and organizations. A number ofdenominations have issued climate position statements or developed
initiatives such as the Green Sanctuary Program, adopted by many
Protestant churches.18 Many denominations include disaster relief
service as part of their social mission and are ready to contribute whenclimate crises hit. Religious coalitions such as the World Council ofChurches, Alliance of Religions and Conservation, and Interfaith Powerand Light are able to advocate for climate awareness and action at the
global level, leveraging their denominational resources to support
initiatives.
How active have Buddhist groups been in the climate conversation?
Stanley et al, authors of A Buddhist Response to the Climate Emergency,19 were highly motivated to engage Tibetan teachers and leaders
because the Tibetan plateau north of the Himalaya Mountain range is thebirthplace of so many critically important rivers systems of Asia—theGanges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Yangtze, Mekong, and Irawaddy. They
created a Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change that has been signedby 65 Buddhist leaders in 13 countries, including Gyalwang Karmapa
XVII, Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Joseph Goldstein, and Jan Chozen Bays,
among others.20 Buddhist temples have also initiated alternative energy
projects in India, Japan, Canada, and Australia and participated in interfaith actions such as the Interreligious Dialogue on Climate Change,
2012.21 Climate web resources for Buddhists can be found at
Ecobuddhism.org and OneEarthSangha.org as well as on Joanna Macy’s
extensive website for The Work That Reconnects.22
Certainly, many basic Buddhist teachings and practices could beengaged in relationship to climate change. These would include theprecepts or moral guidelines based on non-harming, as well as thecentral law of conditioned interdependence and causation that reflects asystems, or holistic, ecological worldview. Buddhist texts emphasize
liberation from suffering through insight awareness based in meditation,and this practice could be applied to climate-related suffering. Perhaps
most important may be the practices that strengthen intention andcompassion on behalf of others. All of these are very rich offerings andcan easily be applied to moral and ethical dilemmas deriving from climate change impacts. Furthermore, they are accessible to non-Buddhists
or those not affiliated with any religion as skillful means for addressing
the consequences of climate change.
However, it should be acknowledged that Buddhist leaders andorganizations have limited influence in the wider global context ofclimate change. Certainly they have limited influence on the biophysical82

buddhist contributions to climate responseworld itself where ice sheets are melting, storms are becoming more
severe, and sea level is rising. Likewise they have relatively limited
influence on climate science or global policy regarding carbon
emissions and the fossil fuel industry. For example, while individual
Buddhists have participated in actions protesting the Keystone XL
pipeline, there are few, if any, Buddhist environmental groups
addressing this issue as a top priority. Buddhists, in general, have fairly
limited religious influence on the climate denial campaign or theindustrial scope of big carbon polluters. Naming these limitations isimportant so as not to overstate the possibilities at hand.
Having surveyed the territory, I find the greatest potential for a
Buddhist contribution to lie within the psychological, ethical and social
aspects of climate change. Through philosophical analysis and mindfulness practice, I believe that Buddhist teachings can make a significant
offering that parallels Buddhist contributions to other environment andsocial justice issues. In this paper, I suggest three avenues for engaging
Buddhist thinking in this challenging climate conversation. These are: 1)
exposing dualistic thinking, 2) developing Buddhist climate ethics, and3) building capacity for resilience.

3.1 Exposing Dualistic Thinking
Polarized views are one of the biggest impediments to progress withclimate change. They generate tremendous suffering. Typically they are
expressed as humans versus nature, the economy versus the environment, the developing world versus the developed world. Dualistic views
tend to exaggerate differences rather than emphasizing commonalities.
They reinforce oppositional positions, reducing creativity for sharedsolutions. From a Buddhist perspective, these positions would be seen as
reflecting false views or false understanding of the self. It is this inflated
idea of the self as one’s central identity that blocks collaboration.
Climate deniers and climate believers both form identity groups aroundtheir views, often defining themselves in opposition to the other. A
similar oppositional pattern may exist between climate victims andclimate benefactors. Yet seen from an interdependent lens, all parties
live on the same planet with a single interconnected climate system.
Denial functions very effectively to reinforce egocentric views andpersonal defenses. It is not uncommon for people to defend theirpersonal environmentally privileged positions in public policy stances or
to use denial to refute factual observations of climate reality. The North
Carolina state legislature, for example, has passed a bill determining
how high the sea can rise on their coastline.23 The phrase “climate

buddhist contributions to climate response83change” was so politically charged that it did not appear anywhere in thelegal policy. As a result of such limiting views, the scale of human andecological suffering is minimized or dismissed.
Taking a sociological view, we can see that climate change
perspectives often reflect differences in status, gender, race, governancestructures, geography, cultures. We can use analytic reasoning to
examine who is espousing which views in ways that provide politicalleverage and perpetuate oppositional thinking. Much has been written
by people of the global South who are experiencing climate change
more dramatically than people in the more well off North.24 Regions andnation states with high levels of energy production show particularly
great extremes that divide people into climate-derived socioeconomic
classes. Climate privilege generates have and have-not groups in relation
to health and poverty, food and security, transportation and pollution.
Poor countries such as Bangladesh and Tuvalu, for example, find themselves at the helpless end of the climate mitigation spectrum. I suggestthat such widely accepted dualistic thinking plays a key role in maintaining global power relations and climate silence.
Buddhist teachings on dualistic thinking are rich in philosophicalanalysis and practice options. I see two arenas where Buddhist thinkers
and leaders could provide some insight into dualistic thinking as an
obstacle to effective climate action. The practice field would be represented in Buddhist practice centers, in religious organizations, and with
Buddhist religious leaders. Discussing dualistic thinking would be anatural extension of dharma topics already typical at Buddhist centers.
These include such things as understanding interdependence of self andother, the influence and manifestations of ego and power, the challengeof refraining from polarizing views, the core practice of self reflection aspart of action. This sort of teaching is cultural work, aimed at shifting
the operational field from conflict to collaboration, from discord torespect.
In terms of philosophical analysis, individual writers and thinkers
may be able to use Buddhist principles to promote climate policies thatminimize polarized views. This might be seen as “small b” Buddhist
work, serving the wider community. Drawing on a Buddhist approach,these thought leaders could facilitate dialogue through hearing all sides
for their particular truths, based on direct experience with climate
impacts. Buddhists or those using Buddhist ideas and practices may bein a good position to help create the conversation spaces flagged by
Norgaard as currently unavailable in normal social discourse. Suchspaces might make it possible to see how climate change affects all

84

buddhist contributions to climate response

parties. The emphasis would be on shared outcomes, thus reducing
actions driven by self-interest. This is a natural reflection of Buddhist
principles and fits well with Buddhist practice efforts.25

3.2 Developing a Buddhist Climate Ethic
Ethics, including religious ethics, offer fundamental guidelines forminimizing suffering through practicing restraint. A climate ethic would
frame such guidelines in the context of minimizing suffering or impact
to the global climate through individual and social practices. Like otherethics, the aim is social stability, allowing human society to flourish
without being continually under threat of harm.
A Buddhist climate ethic would be based in Buddhist ethicalprinciples and a Buddhist understanding of human psychology. Buddhist
texts explain human behaviors in terms of desire: the grasping or
craving after something and the development of ego-identification withthe particular craving. Suffering is explained as the perpetual humantendency to be “hooked” by addictive needs and short-term gratification.
The three most basic desires are: 1) greed, the desire for more ofsomething, 2) aversion, the desire for less of something, and 3) delusion,
the desire for illusory options or self-made fantasies. Ignorance of one’s
own desire patterns inevitably generates a state of suffering. Liberationfrom suffering comes from “seeing” the patterns with awareness insight.
With this basic Buddhist framework and some insight into the keyrole of denial, we can look at how the three aspects of desire might
support climate change denial. Certainly, greed for the never-ending
mountain of consumer goods keeps people entertained and oblivious toclimate change. The more energy, connectivity, and comfort people
desire, the less likely they are to be interested in the sources upon which
their life supports depend. Understanding desire and practicing restraint
can help reduce climate impacts from overconsumption. Likewise, aversion to complex and socially challenging situations such as climatechange can quickly shut down conversations. Aversion polarizes
dialogue over energy and transportation choices while carbon levels
continue to rise. Perhaps delusion is the most prominent feature inclimate denial; it is simply easier to pretend another better future will
unfold, despite the observable facts, or pretend a technological fix will
be found to save us from a climate-caused dystopia.
3.2.1 Supporting Well-Being
First, I propose that a Buddhist climate ethic support the goal of wellbeing broadly defined. Well-being is another phrase for contentment orbuddhist contributions to climate response

85

satisfaction, santutthi, in Pali. In Buddhist teachings, contentment is
explained as the absence of grasping, the absence of desire. The state ofsatisfaction is free of pulls toward or away from identity-enhancing
objects or activities. Well-being can be defined at multiple levels insupport of a climate ethic. At the individual level, this would mean safe
health, meaningful work, a sense of internal control in the face ofclimate change. At the social level, this would mean a safe and stablecivil society, with appropriate governance and market structures tosupport community well-being under climate change. At the global
level, this would mean the capacity to engage in collaborative support
for planetary well-being. Spiritual well-being would reflect right relationship with self and community as well as right relationship with thenatural world. It would be marked by ethical clarity and intention torefrain from harming as well as respect for other non-Buddhist ethicalpaths.
3.2.2 Practicing Non-harming and Compassion
Second, I propose that non-harming and compassion be the foundational
concepts in a Buddhist climate ethic (as in all Buddhist ethics). Nonharming aligns well with the precautionary principle, an important
policy principle that is well established in Europe and inscribed inEuropean Union law. This approach is supported by a deep and thoughtful philosophical and scientific literature.26 In brief, this principle advises
restraint where the degree of harm is unknown. Many drivers of climatechange such as extreme energy extraction, carbon dioxide pollution, andoverconsumption would be moderated by application of the precautionary principle. Efforts to mitigate climate change and develop adaptive
measures are based on reducing harm from climate change impacts
where possible.
The principle of non-harming is an ethical path toward contentment,
the reduction of desire and craving. This can be a spiritual or secular
project. The small Buddhist country of Bhutan has extended this principle to develop a policy goal for national well being, measured as Gross
National Happiness.27 Bhutan is promoting this approach as a viable
alternative to the global economic standard of GNP, gross national
product. At University of Vermont, the Gund Institute of Ecological
Economics is developing indicators for Vermont in support of legislationthat would adopt gross national happiness as a measure of state wellbeing. This is one effort to develop policy choices that could support a
viable climate ethic based on the principle of non-harming.
The practice of non-harming is guided by five primary Buddhist

86buddhist contributions to climate response

precepts for human action that help cultivate compassion, the caring forothers’ well-being as equal to and interdependent with one’s own wellbeing. These five are: 1) not harming life; 2) not taking what is not
given; 3) not participating in abusive relations; 4) not speaking falsely;
and 5) not using intoxicating substances or behaviors. Each of these
could be developed in depth in relation to climate change. Practicing
these precepts in the context of climate change would provide social
support for choosing sustainable behaviors. The core question becomes:
what is our ethical obligation in the context of climate change? Knowing
how dependent human society is on climate stability, what then must we
do? Buddhist ethics view the individual as an active agent in a vast webof relationships where every action generates effects. Based on thisworldview, I would argue that attaining ecological and economic
sustainability under the challenges of rapid climate change requires
ethical engagement. Individuals taking climate ethics seriously as an
expression of non-harming and compassion could help lead actions
toward ethically appropriate social, political, and economic policies.
The practice of compassion represents the internalizing of anunderstanding of non-harming. The cultivation of compassion could
serve as a direct counter to the stifling qualities of denial. Though one
may not have a direct personal experience with climate change, it ispossible to develop compassion for the experience of others. For this tobe a genuine response it must be based on actual facts on the ground,
not some version of denial. The practice of compassion also provides aplatform for living with grief and other emotional states generated bywhat may be devastating and irretrievable losses. Non-harming andcompassion together then serve as the core practice orientation forworking with the impacts of climate change.
3.2.3 Working with a Long View of Time
Third, I propose that a Buddhist climate ethic rest on the foundationallaw of karma, or cause and effect. To cultivate a long-term commitment
to work ethically to mitigate climate impacts, this ethic could draw on
the Buddhist sense of deep time. This is described in Buddhist texts interms of multiple “kalpas,” i.e. an unfathomable stretch of time before(and after) humans on earth. A karmic understanding of time derives
naturally from a Buddhist perspective. Most everyday activity tends tobe viewed in the very short time frame of an individual human life,
based on our general tendency toward self-referencing. A climate ethic
could emphasize the long eons of climate time, shifting perception to amore complete or appropriate scale for human endeavor. This would

buddhist contributions to climate response87

help move the climate conversation away from denial and place it inmore of a cosmic generational perspective. Such a long view of timedevelops useful virtues for working with climate change, such as humility, patience, perspective, endurance, and equanimity. Each of these aredescribed in Buddhist ethical teachings as mutually supportive in thedevelopment of an awakened person. Equanimity is one of the Four
Immeasurables, a virtue boundless in its positive contribution to a stablesociety. Climate change impacts will not be eliminated overnight; it willtake many people’s efforts over many decades to accomplish planetaryclimate stability. A climate ethic based in the practices of non-harming
and compassion, and a deep view of time is one that can serve for thelong scope of this project.

3.3 Building Capacity for Resilience
The third arena for Buddhist action is building capacity for resilience.
This very practical concept is part of current discussions related toclimate impacts, following close on two other dominant approaches. The
first is mitigation, or efforts to dampen the inevitable impacts of sea
level rise and storm flooding, often through mechanical means such as
barriers, channels, dams. The second is adaptation to what has alreadychanged, often in the form of preparedness actions. Building resilienceis building the capacity to rebound psychologically, socially, economically, and politically from a climate impact. I believe Buddhist practicetools have a great deal to offer in this arena.
Mindfulness practice has become very popular and well known in thewest, with active movements to bring mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) techniques to schools, hospice, prisons, and businessplaces.28 Through deliberate attention to body, breath, and mind, themindfulness practitioner becomes more fully engaged in the present
moment. This sort of grounded presence is what you would want for
emergency workers if they are dealing with a climate crisis in yourtown. I would not be surprised to see mindfulness training developed forclimate disaster emergency response teams. The cover story on a recent
issue of the new magazine Mindfulness features an Oregon police force
that has taken mindfulness training to help them stay calm in emergency
situations. Such training would help reduce anxiety, speculation, andprojection about what is happening in a climate-related event and assist
people in figuring out what is needed to return to normal social
functioning. This is a very practical application of Buddhist skillfulmeans. As Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh often says, “Themost precious gift we can offer others is our presence.”29

88

buddhist contributions to climate response

To build capacity for resilience, it is necessary to include—notsuppress or resist—the troubling emotions associated with climatechange. I am suggesting here that emotional self-knowledge builds
capacity for helping others break through denial. Two people working
professionally in this arena are Joanna Macy and Susanne Moser. For
some time, Macy has offered in-depth trainings on working with fear,
grief, despair, and anger in the face of life-threatening environmental
destruction. She teaches people how to accept environmental uncertainty
and still be effective in tackling what needs to be done. Her exercises
enable people to break the habits of helplessness and look directly at
difficult emotions as well as guilt related to global inequities. As Macypoints out, actually doing the work and breaking through denial
generates energy.30 It is holding these powerful emotions back that keeps
people from finding the energy to meet the climate situation directly.
Climate change social scientist Susanne Moser has been speaking topeople in the U.S. Congress and in higher education about using social
science communication skills as well as Buddhist practices as a form ofskillful means in climate work. In an article on leadership for climatechange work, she writes about three key capacities. The first is being
able to speak clearly and calmly about what is real. The second is being
able to hold paradox, to feel what is in conflict and yet still be able tomove forward. The third is being able to do grief work, accepting thatclimate change means people will be grieving the loss of the world as
they know it. Good leaders need to be comfortable with their own griefwork if they are to help others effectively.31
Stability and calmness increase the capacity for building social resilience in community. Buddhist virtue ethics clearly value equanimity andstability. The Dalai Lama models this beautifully in his steady presencein the midst of such devastating blows to his people and society in thepast 50 years. As he says, “Because we all share this planet earth, wehave to learn to live in harmony and peace with each other and withnature. This is not just a dream, but a necessity.”32 He models how to bewith the suffering in the world and still take effective action. This willbe critical as climate conditions deteriorate in the various ways that I
have outlined—flooding, fires and heat, extreme weather conditions,loss of food crops. The Buddhist practice of equanimity means staying
centered in the midst of changing climate conditions and being prepared
for the impacts on social and economic support systems. Families,
schools, governance structures all will struggle to make ends meet andstay afloat during the unexpected and unimaginable.
The Buddhist concept of sangha may offer another model for build-buddhist contributions to climate response

89

ing capacity for resilience. Along with Buddha and dharma, sangha issaid to be one of the three priceless treasures in Buddhism. Investing
effort in building community strengthens the wider sangha of all beings.
Thai engaged Buddhist activist Sulak Sivaraksa refers to this as doing“small b” Buddhist work. We might see it as an antidote to the social
gaps identified by Norgaard that undermine climate response capacity.
Sangha can be strengthened through supporting local ecological relationships, local governance structures, or neighborhood initiatives. It mightmean coordinating disaster preparedness on a neighborhood block,taking steps to reduce consumption, or cultivating friendships to build
social resilience.33 Deepening awareness practice in a local experience ofsangha can increase knowledge and attention to local seasons, weather,and a sense of living well in place. This is “small b” Buddhism inservice to sustaining life, skillful means for climate change.

4. Buddhist Leadership for Climate ResponsivenessThis paper has focused primarily on key Buddhist philosophicalteachings and practices that may be useful in the global response to
climate change, particularly in penetrating the privilege of denial. In thislast section I suggest specific leadership roles for Buddhist teachers andactivist/writers informed by Buddhist principles. With climate change
rolling forward at unprecedented rates, causing suffering in multiplesocial and environmental arenas, leadership of all kinds is much needed.
I propose three arenas in which Buddhist thinkers can play a leadershiprole in relation to climate change, giving voice to the ideas and practices
described in this paper.
First, they can show intellectual leadership in the important realms of
exposing dualistic thinking where it creates damaging polarization andpolitical paralysis. Buddhist mind training is very strong in this capacity,
pointing to the original polarization of self and other. Buddhist thinkers
could take up the analytical task of deconstructing climate denial,
particularly the western environmental sense of privilege in relation toclimate comfort. With careful study of cause and effect and insight into
the psychology of emotions, Buddhist thinkers are well positioned to
identify some of the root causes of climate denial. This might be successful as a sangha discussion topic, drawing on shared insights across a
range of personal experiences.
Second, Buddhist teachers are expected to offer ethical leadership,
both as role models for students and as teachers articulating specificprinciples applicable to Buddhist climate ethics. As described earlier in90buddhist contributions to climate response

the paper, this would include practices of restraint, e.g. not consuming,
avoiding energy and food sourced through extreme harm, managing
personal impact. It would also mean promoting positive paradigms ofwell-being, drawing on Buddhist principles of contentment andequanimity. Buddhist teachers could also work with the central principles of non-harming and compassion as reflected in the many conundrums presented by climate change. This might mean choosing a
specific arena impacted by climate change, either a natural habitat or asocial neighborhood, where compassionate practice could be put inaction. Or it could mean choosing a daily practice in relation to food,work, waste, or energy that would reduce climate harm. Buddhist
teachers could engage the public in discourse based in a karmic view ofdeep time as a way to understand the long history of climate change andimagine the long future ahead.
Third, Buddhist teachers can provide social leadership to help build
community resilience, both within the spiritual community as well as
the larger communities of town, ecosystem, region. I am very impressedwith the social leadership provided by the Soka Gakkai Buddhist
community in its many global initiatives to mitigate environmental
suffering.34 I believe other Buddhist groups could learn a great deal fromtheir commitment and social organization. In the context of amindfulness or meditation setting, Buddhist teachings can facilitate
personal work with troubling emotions that block action. The path forthis work has been well blazed by experienced activists and thinkers
trained in Buddhist philosophy and psychology.35 As more people gain
familiarity with this work they can carry the leadership task forward toeffect positive social response to the threats of climate change. In sum, I
believe these proposed Buddhist contributions can be based in principle,
be strategic and effective, and be heartfelt in their motivation.

5. Conclusion
Thinking creatively to apply Buddhist teachings and leadership toclimate change is a task of our times. Climate change cannot be ignored.
It offers widespread opportunity to apply powerful Buddhist teachings
in a contemporary setting and deepen personal practice. In light of the
stubborn persistence of climate denial, this paper has offered specificresponses to climate change from a Buddhist religious, ethical, andspiritual perspective. It is very much a starting point for dialogue andfurther engagement. As part of the 2013 symposium on Buddhism andthe Environment, I offer this paper as a call to others to join the conversa-

buddhist contributions to climate response91tion—with scientists, social scientists, environmentalists, people offaith, and especially with those who are suffering the devastating impacts of climate change. This is a sober charge that will require muchimaginative thinking and strong spirit. Right here in the midst of thisgreat challenge is the opportunity for great joy and intimacy in approaching this fragile but resilient life.36
NOTES
The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.
See, for example, M. Monirul Qader Mirza, “Climate Change, Flooding in South
Asia and Implications,” Regional Environmental Change 11(1): 95–107, March 2011.
3
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has expanded its
focus to include climate change induced displacement of refugees. See current initiatives
at http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html.
4
See research study results at http://www.otago.ac.nz/oerc/energy_cultures.html.
5 Weintrobe, Sally, ed. Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2013.
6
Key articles are summarized by R. Veldman, A. Szasz, R. Haluza-DeLay, “Climate
Change and Religion.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, Culture 6(3): 255–275,
2012.
7
To be released by Bloomsbury U.S./International in September, 2014. George
Marshall interview comments on climate denial can be found at www.climatedenial.org.
8
Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2011. Key drivers are summarized on pages 63–95.
9Kellstedt, Paul, Sammy Zahran, and Arnold Vedlitz, “Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the
United States, Risk Analysis 28 (1): 113–126, 2008.
10
For example: Jacques, Peter, Riley Dunlap, and Mark Freeman, "The Organisationof Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Skepticism, Environmental
Politics 17 (3): 349–384.
11
Norgaard, p 81.
12
Reports available at http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/.
13
Factors contributing to social construction of denial are reported in Norgaard
Chapter 4, pages 97–135.
14
Norgaard, pages 216–220.
15
Ibid, p 217.
16
Gardner, Gary. Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development. New York: W.W. Norton, 200617
See http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/IPL and www.iccr.org.
18
Religious climate positions are summarized at the Forum on Religion and Ecology
at Yale, http://fore.research.yale.edu/climate-change/statements-from-world-religions/;
the Green Sanctuary is described at http://www.uua.org/environment/sanctuary/.
19
Stanley, John; Loy, David; and Gyume Dorje, eds. A Buddhist Response to the
Climate Emergency. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2009.
20
See http://www.ecobuddhism.org/bcp/all_content/buddhist_declaration/.
21
The conference report is posted at http://safcei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Sri1
2

92

buddhist contributions to climate response

Lanka-Interfaith-Dialogue-on-Climate-Change-report.pdf.
22
See www.joannamacy.net.
23
Reported at http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-risingsea-level/story?id=16913782. Earlier the Department of Environmental Conservation
had removed climate change links from their website, see http://thinkprogress.org/climat
e/2014/03/12/3397541/nc-climate-links-removed/.
24
See, for example, Eric Posner and David Weisbach, Climate Change Justice,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010; and Brian Tokar and Eirik Eiglad,
Toward Climate Justice: Perspectives on the Climate Crisis and Social Change, Communalism Press, 2010.
25
At Spirit Rock Meditation Center in Woodacre, California, the 2014 Earth Day
celebration focused on climate change in response to calls from members to teachers toaddress the issue. See https://www.spiritrock.org/earth-day-2014.
26
See, for example, Jale Tolsun, Risk Regulation in Europe: Assessing the Applicationof the Precautionary Principle. Springer Publications, 2013, and Carolyn Raffensperger,
Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press, 2006.
27
See http://www.gnhbhutan.org/about and http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/.
28
See http://www.mindfullivingprograms.com/whatMBSR.php for program philosophy and www.umassmed.edu/Content.aspx?id=41254 for ongoing trainings.
29
For more information about Thich Nhat Hanh’s life and teachings, see wikipedia.
org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh.
30
Macy’s despair work principles and exercises are described in Macy, Joanna andMolly Young Brown, Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our
World. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1998.
31
See Moser, Susanne C., “Getting real about it: Navigating the psychological andsocial demands of a world in distress.” In: Sage Handbook on Environmental Leadership, Rigling Gallagher, Deborah, Richard N. L. Andrews, and Norman L. Christensen
eds., pp. 432–440, SAGE Reference Series on Leadership, Sage, 2012.
32
From the Dalai Lama’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture, December 1989, available at
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/acceptance-speeches/nobel-peace-prize/nobellecture.
33
See, for example, a neighborhood initiative in Portland, Oregon - PREP, Planningfor Resilience and Emergency Preparedness, http://www.preporegon.org/.
34
See, for example, the April 2014 issue of SGI Quarterly on renewable energy, http://
www.sgiquarterly.org/feature2014apr-1.html.
35
e.g. Joanna Macy, Susanne Moser, John Seed, and others.
36
This paper was presented in an earlier version to the 2013 Buddhism andEnvironment Symposium in Los Angeles. My gratitude to symposium hosts, Dr. Yoichi
Kawada, Soka University, and Dr. Duncan Williams, University of Southern California,
Center for Japanese Religions and Culture. My thanks also to Rebecca Gould and Nancy
Wright for helpful review comments.