'Saving' the planet: its not just about young people

Yesterday, my professor inadvertently stepped into the quagmire of discourse around 'saving' the planet. He held up several recent newspaper articles depicting the result of much scientific research: a great deal of doom. The Amazon might be beyond saving. There is, according to respected people not given to over-reaction, little cause for optimism that we - and hundreds of species, many of whom we have little knowledge of and probably never really noticed but which are essential to a rich, diverse and functional eco system - will most likely not survive climate change.

Now, my professor said, either we chuck it all in and go home and drink, or we realize that we (who study the interactions between science/the environment, policy and people) are at the epicenter of the debate. I, he said, choose the latter, and I am very optimistic that, with you young people going out there into the world, there is hope for change.

Inside I was wincing. I've heard this argument before. Maybe you have, too. 'Older' people (especially those with position and influence) feel helpless by the admitably terrifying global situation, looking in desperation for a 'savior', and finding bright, young faces who have chosen not to turn away from the despair but to instead walk into the grimy battlefield armed with little more than some knowledge and some compassion and the hope that they won't die immediately.

There's some truth to the sentiment - young people can and do make a difference. But, realistically, most young people - including myself - are rarely in a position to make the kind of difference we would like. I'm not saying it never happens. Martin Luther King, Jr, was just over 30. And then there was Jesus, also around 30. Those two certainly made a mark on history. But many of us will graduate the MA degree and go into relatively junior positions in different institutions, many of which will have mission statements we 70% agree with. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to influence a few decisions and touch people's lives in a positive way. This is good. (I strongly prefer this to not having a job, which is another real possibility). Many of us will still wonder what more we could be doing. Just like my professor does.

The world will not be 'saved' without 'young people'. But the young people are not going to save the world by themselves. And what, really, do we mean by 'saving'? The underlying conversations around 'saving' (and around 'apocalypse') have a distinctly religious background - let's dig a bit deeper into that history.

The word 'to save' has its roots in a Hebrew word meaning, 'to make space for.' It means recognizing the other as worthy of space; as worthy of life. The 'other' could mean another person, or a child, or a species. There are many interpretations about who, exactly, creates space for someone else. Is it the child that creates space for the parents to become parents, or the parents that create space for the child to be a child - to be alive? Or do we create space for ourselves?

In the context of climate change, I believe we must create space for one another. You can not save me unless I am also saving you. My tiny actions of not flying on planes will mean very little unless you choose to save me (and yourself) by also not flying. Or by passing laws that forbid both of us from flying.

How about, instead of expecting young people (or the G 20, or Obama, or even just ourselves) to be 'the savior', we recognize the imperative of partnership? Next time someone expresses despair or frustration over the state of the world, perhaps that is the time to take a deep breath, and create space for that person - and for yourself - and say, Right. So. What can we do about this - together?