Buddhist and Non-Religious Environmental Responsibility

Responsibility for a shared world

Environmental responsibility means considering how our choices affect the natural world and the lives it supports. Pollution, excessive resource use and climate change are ethical issues because their consequences include suffering for humans and other animals.

Sustainability looks beyond an immediate benefit. Using resources now should not prevent future generations from meeting their needs. Global citizenship extends responsibility beyond national borders: the people affected by our consumption or pollution may live elsewhere, and future people cannot make their interests heard today.

Buddhists and Humanists can support these responsibilities without believing that a creator God has commanded them. Their reasons overlap, but they draw on different sources of authority.

Dependent arising: nobody exists in isolation

Pratitya Samutpada, or dependent arising, teaches that things arise through causes and conditions. Applied to environmental ethics, it reminds Buddhists that human life depends on a network of relationships with other people, animals, plants and the physical environment.

Consider food: people depend on crops, while crops depend on suitable soil, water and growing conditions. Damaging these conditions can therefore harm people as well as other living things. Environmental protection is not separate from caring for beings; it helps protect the conditions on which their lives depend.

Buddhist concern also centres on dukkha, meaning suffering and dissatisfaction. Droughts, destructive storms and the loss of habitats can cause suffering. Compassion gives Buddhists a reason to respond rather than regard these consequences as somebody else’s problem.

Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent, but this does not mean that avoidable environmental damage should be accepted passively. Natural change and harm intensified by human greed are not ethically the same. The important question is whether people can prevent or reduce suffering.

Right Action and taking only what is given

The Noble Eightfold Path is the Buddhist path towards overcoming suffering. Right Action concerns ethical bodily conduct. The Samyutta Nikaya defines it as “Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity” (SN 45.8). For lay Buddhists, this means avoiding killing, stealing and sexual misconduct. Environmental applications focus especially on conduct that harms living beings or deprives others of what they need.

The second Precept is a training rule expressed as: “I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.” Its direct meaning concerns stealing: intentionally taking another person’s belongings without permission. It encourages honesty and respect for others’ possessions.

An environmental interpretation extends this concern to taking an unfair share of resources: excessive consumption can leave less for other people and future generations. This is an application of the Precept, rather than a claim that its original wording explicitly mentions climate change or that every use of natural resources is theft.

Buddhist teachings also challenge the belief that happiness comes from endlessly acquiring possessions. Wanting more can encourage resource consumption without providing lasting satisfaction. Contentment with enough for a simple, dignified life offers an alternative.

These ideas can influence everyday decisions. Recycling carefully, helping clean up a river or canal, and installing solar panels to heat water are examples of environmentally responsible action. Right Livelihood, another part of the Eightfold Path, also encourages earning a living without causing harm. Together, these teachings connect personal ethical training with the wellbeing of the wider world.

Buddhist Action Month: putting beliefs into practice

Buddhist Action Month, held in June, encourages people to take Buddhist practice into the world through social action. It developed from a single Buddhist Action Day initiated in the UK by the Network of Buddhist Organisations in 2012, and participation spread internationally.

The 2020 theme, ‘For the Earth’, connected compassion for human and non-human beings with responses to the climate crisis and ecological emergency. It encouraged both changes in daily life and advocacy for wider changes to systems and institutions.

During the COVID-19 restrictions, the initiative encouraged flexible ways of participating. A multi-faith vigil for the Earth moved from Westminster to remote participation: people dedicated prayers and practices from home in different time slots, maintaining a round-the-clock vigil. This shows how environmental concern can bring different communities together, rather than remaining an individual belief.

Humanist Climate Action: responsibility through reason and evidence

Humanists ground environmental responsibility in reason, scientific evidence and concern for the welfare of others. Humans are part of the natural world, so damaging it threatens present and future wellbeing. This moral argument does not depend on religious belief.

Humanist Climate Action is a volunteer-led network within Humanists UK. It encourages low-carbon, ethical and sustainable living and campaigns for environmentally friendly policies. Its stated aims include rational discussion of environmental problems, greener lifestyles guided by the best available scientific evidence, and cooperation with other campaigning groups.

Its practical activities include encouraging tree planting, providing resources for discussions about environmental impact, and helping people write to their MPs to call for climate action. It is also a member of The Climate Coalition. These are examples of its activities and aims, not proof that its campaigns have already achieved their desired policy changes.

Humanist Climate Action combines individual and collective responsibility. Changing a lifestyle matters, but political decisions and institutional practices also affect what people can achieve. Its participation in initiatives led by religion or belief organisations shows that disagreement about religion need not prevent cooperation.

Evaluating environmental duties

A strong argument for environmental responsibility is that avoidable harm matters wherever it occurs. Buddhists can support this through compassion, dependent arising and ethical conduct; Humanists can support it through evidence and concern for fellow beings. Both approaches can justify obligations towards people beyond one’s own country and towards future generations.

However, responsibility raises questions about fairness. People with limited money or few transport options may find greener choices difficult. It would be unreasonable to judge everyone solely by whether they can afford the same changes. A fair response considers people’s circumstances while asking governments and institutions to make sustainable choices more accessible.

Another debate concerns whether individual action is enough. Personal changes can reduce harm and express commitment, but individuals cannot alone change every energy system or environmental policy. Conversely, waiting for governments to act can become an excuse for doing nothing. Buddhist Action Month and Humanist Climate Action both provide grounds for combining personal action with wider cooperation.

A justified conclusion could therefore be that environmental responsibility is shared, but need not be identical for everyone. Religious teachings and non-religious reasoning offer different foundations for action, while scientific evidence helps identify which actions are likely to be effective.