With the recent close of the major international conference in Copenhagen, a relationship between its results and the CRT's core ethical principles of human dignity, Kyosei, and stewardship came to mind.

The conference on climate change constituted one more step- a small one it seems - in humanity’s confrontation with the dark side of its collective creative genius. Our godlike abilities to act outside of nature and manipulate its inner dynamics for our benefit and comfort - now on a vast industrial scale thanks primarily to successful global capitalism - have come back to haunt us just as nemesis checks hubris.

Regardless of one’s views on the link between human civilization and changes in the composition of the earth’s atmosphere, it cannot be denied that, thanks to successful industrialization, our species is contributing vast and unprecedented amounts of certain chemicals into our natural environment.

Under similarly inevitable laws of causation, there are no inconsequential acts in nature. Every action, every emission of a greenhouse gas, has some consequence, even if small. It is as if the Buddhist law of karma applies to natural phenomena as well as to human intentionality. Whatever happens sends out ripples of effect, small or large, into the cosmos.

The fact that consequences happen brings us to the need for ethics. Responsibility – both contemplated and unanticipated - is a law of nature. Avoiding harms and risks demands awareness of what might come to be. A rational response to knowing what might happen leads, in the responsible mind, to self-restraint. In short, ethics, business or otherwise, can be presented as a necessary natural phenomenon, not as a luxury or an indulgence.

In fact, the absence of ethics is indulgence, an imposition of selfish willfulness on those around us and on our various environments.

Being short-sighted about the future is not an admirable use of our powers. Consider Wall Street’s recent promotion of an asset bubble in certain financial assets as an example of what kind of irresponsibility should be avoided.

If industrialization is adding consequential amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, then prudence as a part of ethics would have us take remedial actions to maintain a balance between what we cause and what the earth’s climate system can easily digest.

Getting agreement, though, on how to reach such a balance in our systems of industrial production and transportation is proving very difficult under our current systems of global governance.

The recent interim agreement reached at Copenhagen thanks to American President Obama’s mediation makes this point. Copenhagen displayed the power of sovereign nation states and the futility of multi-national processes to achieve binding agreements on actions to mitigate the effects of human industrialization.

Nations lack a sense of urgency in coming to terms with climate change. Parochial interests get in the way of making firm commitments to spend money on new technologies that will change the chemical outcomes of industrial productivity. Some nations want freedom to achieve economic growth with old or existing technologies; others want to be compensated by those more wealthy if the climate changes for the worse; others want binding commitments on changing technologies to shield themselves from climate change.

All seem to apply game theoretical negotiations around self-interest. The bargaining therefore becomes chaotic. Results are hard to come by. Gridlock and the status quo prevail.

How can such hesitation be overcome? What sword of higher purpose can cut the Gordian knot of complexly intertwined and conflicting self-interests?

At such times, seeking principled leadership may be remedial. Leading from a stance of principle lengthens our time horizons and raises our sights. Self-interest, to be sure, does not disappear but, under the pressure of alignment with principle and with the foresight that accompanies understanding of principle, self-interest undergoes some degree of transformation in its self-awareness. It become more like a self-interest “considered upon the whole”.

The Caux Round Table recommends three stances for consideration of principled leadership: human dignity, kyosei, and stewardship.

From these vantage points of ethical action, we consider first the impact of our course of action on peoples as worthy ends of policy. Second, we reflect from the perspective of Kyosei (which means living in symbiotic relationships with that which is all around us) on how our best interests flourish better with reciprocal and sympathetic actions by others and from nature itself, which perspective then moves us towards action for the greater good. Third, once we see ourselves as stewards, we are predisposed towards more far-sighted measurement of consequences and place less value on our immediate personal satisfaction.

Application of standards of human dignity, kyosei, and stewardship to thinking about the current reality of humanity’s productive capacity, to me, drives resolve towards intentional action to change our technologies on a global scale.

We all depend on only one climate; therefore, we all should be principled enough to act in concert for the long term health of that upon which we all depend.