There is a great need for a full understanding idea of the “Commons.” It is an idea that languishes largely disregarded. It is terminology we use in our political system – The House of Commons. Another instance where it appeared was the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton – a commoner.
A commonwealth originally meant a group of persons banded together for the common good. In the topographical backdrop of Aberdeen, Scotland, the Bennachie hillside, up until the mid 1800’s, was regarded as a Free or Royal Forest – a commonty – available to the local inhabitants. We look to British history for much of our insight into this idea of “The Commons.”
People have always been tribal and territorial on some scale. The idea of private property is a relatively recent phenomenon in the annals of human history. In a less crowded landscape people used the tribal territory and unclaimed land in close proximity to secure the resources for their existence. In the absence of conflict, and with an abundance of resources, they thrived.
The territory would provide potable water and food – berries, nuts, fruit, vegetables, roots, tubers, leafy greens, fish, game, and material for fuel, building, clothing, and tool making. The best local example of the commons that remains in our immediate landscape is the annual harvest of fiddleheads.
When nations emerged on a larger scale with kingship, much of the land, though it might be Crown land, was still available to common people for procurement of resources. But a time came when royalty dispensed some, and eventually most, of the land to favoured individuals for reward or loyalty or for business purposes. Access to these lands was diminished or denied to the common people. In historical and political terms, these were the “Clearances” and the “Enclosures.” Most of the land in Great Britain is now owned by relatively few families and has been for generations.
Part of the incentive for immigration to the colonies was the prospect of owning land. It was possible for these immigrants, with the backing of government, to insert themselves into a landscape still on a tribal territorial model where private property was not yet a fact.
The original idea of the commons centered on the shared use of land with obvious concerns for useable water. Little thought was given to air quality and none to climate change. Over crowding and the Industrial Revolution changed all that. High population density and ignorance of sanitation had the effect of despoiling the shared water resources. Industry used nearby rivers and lakes as depositories for their effluent.
More recently, there has been a realization that air, or the atmosphere, is also a shared or common resource. We now know that it is being despoiled by pollution and climate changing gases. It can also be said that noise, artificial light, and human generated electromagnetic radiation is also degrading our living space.
The most egregious offenders are unregulated industry and affluent people. Do wealthy people have more right to despoil a common resource? The small sign that was recently held up behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a public meeting calling for “Climate Justice Now,” goes to the heart of the matter.
Everything we do affects everybody else and nothing happens without the use of energy. Without restrictions on carbon emissions and pollution there will continue to be climate injustice. Even a tax or price on carbon will be insufficient because the financially well endowed will simply pay the costs when forced to and avoid it when they can. The affluent need reminding that, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should!”
In an overpopulated world whose privileged inhabitants voraciously consume energy, there will need to be limits on energy consumption. It will not be the first time in history that sumptuary laws have been enacted, but it will be the first time it must happen on a global scale.
When voluntary compliance is ineffective, the only option left is the heavy hand of legislation. It will be the affluent that will be the most resistant to embracing climate justice, a fairer worldview, and a less destructive life style, even though it has been the prosperous societies in the developed nations that have precipitated this predicament. There will probably be a reduction in convenience and in non-essential discretionary activities, and maybe a reduced level of comfort unless we start making maximum use of renewable energy now.
Yes, the word is, “rationing.” The only system that will achieve climate justice is capping fossil fuel energy consumption, with allowance made for those not responsible for climate change. Capping and rationing sets an absolute limit on the amount of carbon pollution from energy consumption allowed to enter the atmosphere. Though it may be more administratively complex than a simple carbon tax, it gives every earthly inhabitant equal access and rights to their fair share of a common resource. Urgent action is required on limiting energy consumption by this method if we are to leave a habitable planet to our descendants.
The atmosphere is, above all, a common resource essential to the wellbeing of all people. Those not primarily responsible for despoiling it need to be emphatically stating, “It’s my air, too.”
Written by Conrad Anderson, a member of the Woodstock Sustainable Energy Group.
Energy Futures column published in the Bugle-Observer, March 14, 2014.