Politicians alone cannot save the planet - The Jewish Chronicle

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when? (Pirkei Avot)

The accelerating impact of climate change indicates that we risk leaving an appalling legacy for the future - the planet in a deteriorating condition; widespread extinction of species and genetic variability; extensive water and food shortages; consequently huge, migratory, demographic pressures; and wars of survival and catastrophic losses of life.

In view of these predictable outcomes of the insufficiency of our actions, we need to see ourselves as both accountable to the generations succeeding us and as responsible for giving them the highest priority.

The implications over-arch all aspects of our lives. A return to economic growth is a nonsensical direction for governments to take unless account is taken of the planet's non-negotiable limit on further absorption of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere without that leading to uncontrollable climate change. It is wishful thinking to believe that new technologies will solve the problem in time and at affordable cost, or, by contrast, to look to divine intervention to save us.

The only strategy that can command international support is one founded on moral principles which are then put into practice. These are ones based on a policy of contracting the emissions to a safe level, and converging them to an equal per capita share across the world's population.

That requires massive behavioural changes including a dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuels through speedy abandonment of our carbon-profligate lifestyles.

I would suggest that, as a matter of urgency, the Jewish community can no longer continue to fight shy of paying serious attention to the following questions and engaging in honest debate on them:

1. Is our ambition to be "a light unto the nations", leading by example, no more than rhetoric? If so, to whom do we look in order to be in the vanguard of progress?

2. Is it realistic to rely on each individual to deliver his fair share of the essential reductions voluntarily when others are in no way disadvantaged by choosing not to do so? As an example, just one person's round flight to Israel results in carbon emissions far in excess of the equitable ration that can be allowed for all of that person's fuel-using activities for a year. Is not government intervention to oblige everyone to fairly share the burden therefore essential?

3. Given their moral authority, should we not expect the Chief Rabbi and other religious leaders to speak out more forcefully on this central issue of our time without having to be fearful of any distorted interpretations of their statements in the media? And if they decline to do so, which institutions or individuals do they consider better suited?

In the absence of adequate and realistic answers to these questions, the prospects are bleak indeed. The accumulation of evidence on climate change makes it progressively unacceptable that, in the years ahead, we find ourselves having to face our accusing children and grandchildren, pleading ignorance with the excuse "we did not know".