11 Paddling on Both Sides of the Canoe …
221
Conclusion—Towards Consilience
Oceania is an exemplar of the intensifying impacts of a changing climate on frontline
communities around the planet, especially those in coastal zones. Pacific communities hold a range of beliefs regarding the natural world and climatic processes, as
well as their connection to both. Behavior studies indicate that people make choices,
both rational and irrational, based on a range of data that ultimately resonates and
with their previous experiences and intuitive worldviews. Through engaging with
communities in ways that are meaningful to them, such as drafting a community
resource management plan (Veitayaki and Holland 2018), and improving climate
literacy and decision processes support through educational programmes in FBO
settings, more climate-resilient communities can be established.
Consequently, in conjunction with the international top-down negotiation
processes of the Paris Agreement and subsequent UN Conference of the Parties
(COP)s (Gard 2018), a bottom-up approach that is informed by spiritual and religious
perspectives is critically needed to build credible institutions, policies and community
support measures. Science and technical knowledge is a significant aspect of what
decision makers need to know, but the greatest potential for a successful response to
the climate crisis will be achieved through an integrated approach to risk management, an approach that assists communities in integrating faith informed perspectives, ascertaining priorities, promoting actionable outputs, and facilitating successful
adaptation to the rapidly changing world, such as in the example of Tropical Cyclone
Winston in Fiji.
A dichotomy between that which is considered scientific and that which is deemed
spiritual or religious is a determent and false in an Oceanian context. As Fair notes,
the “rejection of religious perspectives appears to emerge from both a misunderstanding (and secular rejection) of religious thought and a desire to enforce the
boundaries between the religious and the scientific” (Fair 2018: 5). There is at times
a latent, and at others blatant, perception that present climate change adaptations
must “be rectified by an increase in scientific information and a rejection of religious knowledge” (Fair 2018: 5). In response to this point, consider once again the
Melanesian concept of creation, as expressed in Making Sense of the Oneness of Life:
a Melanesian Christian View on Creation, “in terms of people’s relationship to the
earth and the environment… It is an affirmation of life’s unity – the interrelatedness,
and the interdependence, between human life and nature” (Ole 1990: 33). From this
perspective all things are connected and dependent on each other, and greater still,
“each is made possible by the other… [and] provides a meaning of life” (Ole 1990:
33). This holistic perspective further underscores the confusion and damage that can
be wrought when climate change discourse and response force a false dichotomy
between what in a Western context deemed to be exclusively scientific and religious
knowledge.
As it been noted previously, the most influential and trusted communication channels are often those that involve FBOs and religious leaders, such as I noted in the
221
Conclusion—Towards Consilience
Oceania is an exemplar of the intensifying impacts of a changing climate on frontline
communities around the planet, especially those in coastal zones. Pacific communities hold a range of beliefs regarding the natural world and climatic processes, as
well as their connection to both. Behavior studies indicate that people make choices,
both rational and irrational, based on a range of data that ultimately resonates and
with their previous experiences and intuitive worldviews. Through engaging with
communities in ways that are meaningful to them, such as drafting a community
resource management plan (Veitayaki and Holland 2018), and improving climate
literacy and decision processes support through educational programmes in FBO
settings, more climate-resilient communities can be established.
Consequently, in conjunction with the international top-down negotiation
processes of the Paris Agreement and subsequent UN Conference of the Parties
(COP)s (Gard 2018), a bottom-up approach that is informed by spiritual and religious
perspectives is critically needed to build credible institutions, policies and community
support measures. Science and technical knowledge is a significant aspect of what
decision makers need to know, but the greatest potential for a successful response to
the climate crisis will be achieved through an integrated approach to risk management, an approach that assists communities in integrating faith informed perspectives, ascertaining priorities, promoting actionable outputs, and facilitating successful
adaptation to the rapidly changing world, such as in the example of Tropical Cyclone
Winston in Fiji.
A dichotomy between that which is considered scientific and that which is deemed
spiritual or religious is a determent and false in an Oceanian context. As Fair notes,
the “rejection of religious perspectives appears to emerge from both a misunderstanding (and secular rejection) of religious thought and a desire to enforce the
boundaries between the religious and the scientific” (Fair 2018: 5). There is at times
a latent, and at others blatant, perception that present climate change adaptations
must “be rectified by an increase in scientific information and a rejection of religious knowledge” (Fair 2018: 5). In response to this point, consider once again the
Melanesian concept of creation, as expressed in Making Sense of the Oneness of Life:
a Melanesian Christian View on Creation, “in terms of people’s relationship to the
earth and the environment… It is an affirmation of life’s unity – the interrelatedness,
and the interdependence, between human life and nature” (Ole 1990: 33). From this
perspective all things are connected and dependent on each other, and greater still,
“each is made possible by the other… [and] provides a meaning of life” (Ole 1990:
33). This holistic perspective further underscores the confusion and damage that can
be wrought when climate change discourse and response force a false dichotomy
between what in a Western context deemed to be exclusively scientific and religious
knowledge.
As it been noted previously, the most influential and trusted communication channels are often those that involve FBOs and religious leaders, such as I noted in the