Accordingly I look forward to reports from those who do take him seriously that they are selling their cars, forswearing off flying to meetings (Who are Anglicans? "We meet") and refusing to use electric heaters until the cessation of all coal, natural gas and diesel fired power stations contributing to their national power grids. It goes without saying that no fires will be lit by Anglicans taking Tutu seriously.
Let's be clear: oil companies are not to blame for oil usage, nor coal companies for burning coal. Nor are investors in these companies. The blame lies solely with consumers. With you and me and our use of cars, purchases from supermarkets of products delivered to them by trucks, turning on heaters in the middle of winter, and buying tools, BBQs and other steel or iron products from hardware stores.
In one way Tutu is right: we could solve the contribution of fossil fuels to climate change at a stroke if our consumption habits change. But he blames the wrong people for the problem and thus asks the wrong people to change.
This, by Tutu in his Guardian article, is just
"People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change."
The real truth is far from pleasant and way too personal. It is this:
People of conscience need to break their ties with consumption habits with contribute to the injustice of climate change.
I look forward to your reports via comments of your changed consumption habits ...
Incidentally, Tutu's contribution seems to miss the point that a very simple way to change the climate would be for the human population to radically reduce itself. We are in the state we are in as much as anything because we have grown the global population to a point almost unimaginable (say) 100 years ago. We could reduce our numbers by having less children, knowing the consequence will soon be billions of elderly people without sufficient work force generating the income to support them as they age towards death. Anyone up for that?