THE FOUR WINDS

Reprinted from WORDS THAT COME BEFORE ALL ELSE

Environmental Philosophies of the Haudenosaunee

Task Force

By Les Benedict

Continued from last week

SECTION II: WHY THE FOUR WINDS ARE HAVING TROUBLE

The four winds are in trouble because human kind has lost respect for the power of the Four Winds and forgotten their importance to all life. The standard of living that is expected by the industrial societies and their associated material goods have been traded for clean unpolluted air. In trade for refreshing breaths are toxic materials which are the by-products of the production of electricity to power our possessions and of the things we feel we must possess. Consumer society had altered peoples mind to believe that quality of life is possessing many things. Consumer based societies demand machinery, appliances, automobiles, fuel and all at a low price. Unfortunately, the low price has a hidden cost that is taxing the ability of the Four Winds to refresh our lands.

The Four Winds are in trouble because of the heavy industrialization that began in the mid 1800’s and that is continuing today. Industry, the products of industry and the use of the products of industry have placed a heavy burden on the air we breathe. The industrial age began with no regard for Mother Earth and her elements. The furnaces of industry belched iron and steel, and great riches, for the powerful magnates of the industrial age.

Only recently had there been concern, mainly because the effects on humans, primarily because of the revelation that something is happening to the Four Winds and is happening fast. In the past century, the industrial and consumer society has had a profound impact upon the atmosphere. The impacts are of global proportions and affect every being on Mother Earth. Industrial nations are urgently trying to resolve global warming and depletion of the ozone layer through international agreements. These measures, however, are deeply criticized for not going far enough to achieve any real progress. Industrial economists are concerned that reducing consumption of resources such as oil and gas, a source of carbon dioxide (green house gas), will result in the loss of thousands of jobs and severe impacts to the national economy. Apparently, they haven’t thought much about who they would be selling fuel and gas to when environmental impacts begin to eliminate human life. One such agreement is the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, which is intended to reduce emissions of “green house gases” worldwide by industrial nations.

A December 14, 1997 Washington Post Article titled “In the Spirit of Kyoto,” highlights United States Vice-President Al Gore’s remarks concerning the Kyoto agreement.

“Because of our new technological power and our growing numbers, we now must pay careful attention to the consequences of what we are doing to the Earth, especially to the atmosphere.

The most vulnerable part of the Earth’s environment is the very thin layer of air clinging near to the surface of the planet, which we are now so carelessly filling with gaseous wastes that are actually altering the relationship between the earth and the sun by trapping more solar radiation under this growing blanket of pollution that envelopes the entire world. The extra heat that cannot escape is beginning to change the global patterns of climate to which we are accustomed and to which we have adapted over the past 10,000 years.

Last week, we learned from scientists that this year, 1997, will be the hottest since records have been kept. Indeed, 9 out of the 10 hottest years since the measurements began have some in the past decade. The trend is clear. The human consequences and the economic costs of failing to act are unthinkable: more record floods, droughts, diseases and pests spreading to new areas. Crop failures and famines. Melting glaciers, stronger storms, and rising seas.

Our fundamental challenge is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are causing the problem. We all understand that our work in Kyoto is only a beginning. None of the proposals being debated here will solve the problem completely by itself. But, if we get off to the right start here, we can quickly build momentum as we learn together how to meet this challenge.

Our first step should be to set realistic and achievable, binding emissions limits, which will create markets for new technologies and new ideas that will, in turn, expand the boundaries of the possible and create new hope. Other steps will then follow. And then, ultimately, we will achieve a safe overall concentration level for green house gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the step-by-step approach we took in Montreal 10 years ago to address the problem of ozone depletion. And it is working.

Continued next week