BHP claims through Chairman Jac Nasser (http://bit.ly/1aNLsbI) now to accept the mainstream climate science. Presumably they also acknowledge the substantial climate risk we face, the role BHP has played in this as a large emitter, and the social justice issues which follow, for instance to South Pacific island populations. Comments by Andrew McKenzie (CEO, BHP) at the recent BHP shareholder meeting (21 November 2013)) therefore give some concern. Mr McKenzie proposed that through BHP’s participation in the Abbott government’s direct action plan that BHP’s international competitiveness is protected. Is he suggesting, then, that the economy, in particular the international competitiveness of BHP, is subordinate to the task of finding the best mechanism available to protect the climate and environment from the global warming’s effects and the social injustices that are about to be delivered to a host of vulnerable communities?
Mr McKenzie also says, “There's no point in giving up [carbon dioxide] in Australia only to find that it's going to be emitted less efficiently elsewhere.” Really, does he mean this? Where then is the leadership? Where is the principle of doing the right thing, of an altruism which when it sees a gross disadvantage sets aside self-interest for the sake of justice? Where is the recognition that BHP as an emitter has responsibility to make restoration? Mr McKenzie’s approach seeks the lowest common denominator in leadership; it is as culpably irresponsible as it is unimaginative.
Here we have another example of economics replacing political and social discourse. Our society’s fixation on economic success, especially of the individualist kind, blinkers us to those other considerations which make us a human community.
What is the role of the corporation here? It has captured, presumably, some of the best talent the community has to offer. It has garnered tremendous investment in this country and internationally. It has been given the right to access vast economic resources on our behalf. What responsibility accompanies these gifts? Sure, it has a responsibility to its shareholders, but that is not, morally, prior its responsibility to the community which provides the social licence and the resources for its operation.
It is good to see that some shareholders at this meeting raising climate change as an issue for the company.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
Remembering on Remembrance Day
Remembering on Remembrance Day is becoming contentious. In Britain, the role of the Church of England in officiating at London’s Cenotaph is being challenged by the National Secular Society. They point out that the cenotaph is an entirely secular monument and the CofE no longer has a role or a right.
In Australia Remembrance Day is overshadowed somewhat by ANZAC Day. For some, any of this commemoration has an ambivalence. Remembrance Day is essentially an English event and Australia’s participation, although steeped in a tradition of observance, is really only as a reflection of how we once thought of ourselves as English. Well, some of us. ANZAC Day is much more directly pertinent but its memory is conflicted by the nature of the event it remembers and the way the day is be coming a secular religious festival and visiting Gallipoli a ‘rite of passage’.
Remembrance Day in the Church has difficulties. Not least of these is the way in which the Eucharist can be co-opted for a military parade but also for the way in which the Gospel is co-opted to reaffirm patriotic sensibility or worse, to glorify war. The readings suggested are usually from the Gospel of John and select those parts which refer to the sacrificial laying down of life for others. The Australian Prayer Book does not offer lections but defenceanglicans.org.au suggests John 10.1-21 - Jesus’ allegory of the good shepherd with all its beautifully colourful pastoral imagery - the good shepherd, the sheep protected in the sheepfold from the wolves.
What this selection misses is that Jn 10.1-21 is a commentary on the preceding Ch 9 which contains the parable of the man born blind and the subsequent persecution of Jesus by the Pharisees. Jn 10.1-21 is an allegorical attack on the Pharisees and a commentary on the responsibility for leadership and stewardship.
On Remembrance Day, it speaks to me not of the need for a strong defence force (the sheepfold) or for strong military leaders (good shepherds) to protect us against the enemies of the nation (wolves, thieves, bandits and hired hands). Rather, is says to me we need in our national leaders - one species of contemporary good shepherds - integrity that we may trust them to lead the people - the sheep - into good pasture. That means not into danger, not into war.
Jesus demands of us all, transformation of our lives and the societies in which we live. Reading the good shepherd on Remembrance Day highlights to me that we, through our leaders, have not responded to our experience of war and transformed our national society or our international society in response to the horror, the waste ad the destruction. Rather, we tend to glorify the horror and the death of the people. We are at risk of becoming dependent on war (or conflict, such as the refugee ‘emergency’) as a means of defining our national identity.
In Australia Remembrance Day is overshadowed somewhat by ANZAC Day. For some, any of this commemoration has an ambivalence. Remembrance Day is essentially an English event and Australia’s participation, although steeped in a tradition of observance, is really only as a reflection of how we once thought of ourselves as English. Well, some of us. ANZAC Day is much more directly pertinent but its memory is conflicted by the nature of the event it remembers and the way the day is be coming a secular religious festival and visiting Gallipoli a ‘rite of passage’.
Remembrance Day in the Church has difficulties. Not least of these is the way in which the Eucharist can be co-opted for a military parade but also for the way in which the Gospel is co-opted to reaffirm patriotic sensibility or worse, to glorify war. The readings suggested are usually from the Gospel of John and select those parts which refer to the sacrificial laying down of life for others. The Australian Prayer Book does not offer lections but defenceanglicans.org.au suggests John 10.1-21 - Jesus’ allegory of the good shepherd with all its beautifully colourful pastoral imagery - the good shepherd, the sheep protected in the sheepfold from the wolves.
What this selection misses is that Jn 10.1-21 is a commentary on the preceding Ch 9 which contains the parable of the man born blind and the subsequent persecution of Jesus by the Pharisees. Jn 10.1-21 is an allegorical attack on the Pharisees and a commentary on the responsibility for leadership and stewardship.
On Remembrance Day, it speaks to me not of the need for a strong defence force (the sheepfold) or for strong military leaders (good shepherds) to protect us against the enemies of the nation (wolves, thieves, bandits and hired hands). Rather, is says to me we need in our national leaders - one species of contemporary good shepherds - integrity that we may trust them to lead the people - the sheep - into good pasture. That means not into danger, not into war.
Jesus demands of us all, transformation of our lives and the societies in which we live. Reading the good shepherd on Remembrance Day highlights to me that we, through our leaders, have not responded to our experience of war and transformed our national society or our international society in response to the horror, the waste ad the destruction. Rather, we tend to glorify the horror and the death of the people. We are at risk of becoming dependent on war (or conflict, such as the refugee ‘emergency’) as a means of defining our national identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)