The values that guide our society change and the persuasive power of morality faithfully follows. In an age of high-speed communication where massive amounts of new information reach huge numbers of people, we can expect these changes to occur quickly, reshaping how we understand, behave and judge.
Consider smoking. In a short decade, an acceptable addiction has become a social stigma. Smoking is banned in most public places – a new mother, with an infant cradled in one arm and a lit cigarette dangling between the fingers of the other, is now seen as symbol of irresponsibility. As obesity becomes an identified health crisis, junk food is undergoing a similar transformation. And, as environmental issues occupy more of our attention, they initiate shifts in our measure of moral behaviour.
These shift are inexorable and already discernible. What kind of a car do you drive? Is it a gas-guzzling Hummer or a fuel-sipping hybrid? Is it luxurious or compact? Is its purpose transportation or status? Such questions, once barely at the level of conscious consideration, now loom large with a weight of moral implication and judgment. Are you adding an unfair share of carbon dioxide to an atmosphere already feverish with the stuff? Are you a part of the deepening problem or are you part of the evolving solution? The hook of morality, once set, is not easily shaken loose by pleadings of exception, ignorance or indifference.
Where did you go on your holidays? The question seems innocent enough. But it has become laden with environmental implications. Did you fly? Travel on a cruise ship? How far did you go? Do you know the weight of greenhouse gases caused by that vacation? Did you purchase carbon offsets? Can you be certain such offsets have adequately and wisely compensated for your emissions?
Other questions apply to more fundamental lifestyle issues. How big is your house? Is it energy efficient? How long is your commute to and from work? Do you bike, drive, car pool or take public transit? Do you recycle? Do you have a job that pollutes? Do you work for a corporation that produces or emits toxins? Each question implies judgment measured by the new ruler of environmental impact.
The change to this evolving morality doesn't come overtly or explicitly; it arrives subtly by inference and innuendo. No one decides what is acceptable or not. But the predominance of environmental concerns rising in our collective consciousness begins to impart evaluations to almost everything we do. Do you eat meat? Are you a vegetarian? Are you a hunter? A trophy hunter? Do you purchase farmed salmon? Do you buy organic? Do you try to consume locally-grown food? Do you supply your own reusable bags when shopping? Do you know if your money is ethically invested? How many children do you have? Society is always judging and weighing our individual actions against the disposition of the times, urging us to conform to its predominant values. So, as the prospect of an uncertain environmental future begins to ratchet up anxiety, we are forced to feel accountable and uncomfortable, like a Medieval citizen being scrutinized about attendance at mass and confession.
Of course, we are each environmental "sinners". We occupy space and use resources by the very process of living. Just the essential act of breathing produces about a kilogram of carbon dioxide per person per day. But the central issue is the optional choices we make as individual people, the ones that reflect our values, awareness, sensitivity and responsiveness to our surroundings. They are now being scrutinized by the increasingly stringent measure of environmental responsibility.
Perhaps this issue is put most bluntly by Tim Flannery, an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist and author of The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth. In an interview printed shortly after the publication of his book (Globe & Mail, Mar. 28/06), he says: "Those [who] say climate change doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter, or it's too expensive to do anything about, you have to question what their moral framework is – where does it lie? And unless that question can be satisfactorily answered, you worry about their perspectives. Or at least I do, personally."
"Personally" is becoming the operative word regarding all environmental matters these days. Because none of us can escape from the planet, we are all hostages of each other. What we each choose to do, affects our fellows; and what they choose to do, affects us. The same forces that create a framework for acceptable social behaviour are now creating a framework for a common environmental morality. As the ecological health of the planet continues to increase in profile, so too will the pressure for each of us to be environmentally responsible and conscientiousness.
Some of these personal pressures will be relieved by government regulation – what is presently optional will become mandatory. Carbon taxes in some form will eventually be imposed by law, just as our collective will requires payment of income, property, sales and other taxes. We will no longer have to wrestle with them as moral issues because they will become legal ones, forcing us toward lower emissions and less environmental impact.
But laws cannot replace all discretion. Most of what we do will be guided by those shifting and intangible social pressures that shape us on the inside. Conscience will become progressively greener as we monitor the viability of ecosystems and gauge our impact on them. Our individual morality will be increasingly measured by the health of our surrounding environment. As is already happening, we are adding a new dimension to the notion of being right or wrong, good or bad.