To Burn or Not to Burn
Hello. Temple and Effigy Co-Lead and all-round over-thinker, here.
While we fully intend to set this year's Temple and Effigy ablaze (in part because I have neither the money nor space to store materials), I think it would be good for us to discuss whether we want to make the burning of a temple and effigy a part of Burning Nest in the future.
While I think we can all agree that the carbon released into the atmosphere by our wee Burn is, in relative terms, pretty teeny, especially compared to much bigger global contributors, there is a question, for me, about whether we should unnecessarily be releasing any carbon into the atmosphere as a result of our event. Carbon released from burning wood is, in relative terms, very high (wood, growing over decades by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, stores a lot of carbon). And not burning the Temple and Effigy is a pretty straight-forward way that we could avoid doing that.
Some other points: I love the symbolism of the Burn. I love the somewhat nihilist destruction of it, the silly, primate awe and wonder of it, and the message it communicates about material transience (more important than ever, I think, in the face of our extinction).
But on the other hand, perhaps there are other ways to communicate these ideas and feelings without actually destroying nature so viscerally and literally.
Other regional Burns don't always burn their Temples and Effigies. I believe the Temple from AfrikaBurn will be going on tour, to engage local communities in Burner culture and to encourage young people in particular to engage in creative expression. By not burning their Temple, AfrikaBurn can also make more colourful, more participatory structures, as well as saving money and resources year on year by having the option of repurposing materials from previous years' structures.
I'd like to hear people's views on this below, including what the Burn means to you, how integral it is to you for a Burn event (and for Nest in particular), what alternatives there might be to burning our Temple and Effigy, and so on.
And yes, I'm fully aware of the potential irony and hypocrisy that the person who proposed and is co-creating the biggest Temple that Nest has ever burned, is also questioning the burning of the Temple and Effigy. If you're surprised by this, then you probably haven't met me. Hi.
Simon Edwards Mon 8 Apr 2019 12:04PM
Personally I wouldn't worry. The carbon footprint of the whole event, all the vehicles getting people there - where do you stop? The best way would not to have Nest at all and I doubt anyone would advocate that.
Graeme McGregor Mon 8 Apr 2019 12:13PM
Yeah, no one is advocating that, because the end goal is to minimise our carbon emissions within practical limits, not to prevent all carbon emissions no matter the cost.
The problem with the argument you make is that, applied to this and other issues, we should never do anything to try and prevent climate change (or any other problem) because where would it stop? You could make the same argument about all kinds of things (and people do, all the time). For example, "If we allow same-sex marriage, then where do we stop? Do we allow people to marry animals? Do we allow incest? Child marriage?". It's called the Slippery Slope argument and is considered a logical fallacy.
My point was more that, if we can avoid releasing that carbon into the atmosphere without seriously undermining Burning Nest as an event - either practically, emotionally or symbolically - then why wouldn't we?
Simon Edwards Mon 8 Apr 2019 12:48PM
Hmm. I don't think I've seen anyone try and jump from the human right of same-sex marriage to non-consensual activities involving children and animals before. I'm not sure that qualifies as a slope.
As Yon says below, there are a multitude of ways to achieve better results than through avoiding a burn. And what happens to the things no longer burned? I doubt much could be re-used.
Graeme McGregor Mon 8 Apr 2019 1:25PM
It was a common argument during the struggle for same sex marriage. And you're right, it's nonsensical. But in rhetorical terms it belongs to the same set of logical fallacies as your point.
I do think Yon makes a good point, too. :)
Yon Mon 8 Apr 2019 12:09PM
To me burning the temple and effigy are central parts of a burn (even being part of the name).
There isnt really any communal ceremony that brings people together in the same way. It's primal and deeply significant. Having experienced many nowheres without burning I can say that you just don't get the same turn out or experience.
If carbon is the reasoning then there are by far more effective ways to reduce our carbon foot print. Organising buses, local food produce supplies, greener energies, getting several people to not fly in a year. Burning wood on this scale real has very little impact compared to SO many other things in our modern lives.
I think a burning some wood is worth the experience provided for the community.
Graeme McGregor Mon 8 Apr 2019 12:16PM
Thanks for that really thoughtful and reasonable response, Yon.
Which actually raises another point, for me: We should have an environmental review and project for Nest, to look at how we can collectively reduce our waste and carbon emissions. I won't have time to set anything up or seriously contribute until after this year's Nest (too busy arranging to burn things!), but it would be good to get that ball rolling and this is probably a good forum to do it in.
For example, I was thinking that a big, communal kitchen camp would be a great way to not only reduce food waste, packaging waste and our collective emissions, but also to reduce costs of attendance for a lot of people.
Lexy Mon 8 Apr 2019 2:42PM
Many camps have camp kitchens & camp meals.
And some camps feed the masses (eg Desanka)
Trying to do a kitchen to feed 500 people with zero infrastructure / buildings while not impossible, would be very difficult and the burden of effort would fall on a few.
Obviously if someone fancied doing this as a community driven project, then it would be welcomed and encouraged!
We do communal meals at Microburn and thats only for 100-150 people and thats challenging enough!
Graeme McGregor Mon 8 Apr 2019 3:00PM
Absolutely. I definitely wasn't suggesting one camp cooking for 500 people. However, I like the idea of a Kitchen Camp that cooks and provides food for people who aren't otherwise involved in camps with communal cooking.
Joining a camp can be prohibitively expensive, so this would be a cheaper option for those who can't afford to join a camp but would appreciate or benefit from communal meals. It would massively cut down on the waste and expense of Nest.
I think I'll look into it for next year. I know there's a big communal kitchen at Fire in the Mountain; I could chat to the people who run that about how they do it. :)
Lexy Mon 8 Apr 2019 1:05PM
I say BURN.
If you are going to focus on carbon emissions - then a much bigger impact is the traveling to get to Nest, and efforts would be better focused on facilitating community transport (coaches, ride share board, sharing info on trains and cheapest tickets available etc) than worrying about a teeny tiny burn.
Also the cathartic and bonding experience for the community is extremely valuable both to individuals and the community as a whole.
Lozmatron · Mon 8 Apr 2019 11:34AM
I like the burn but would equally be open to a different kind of ceremony if it is better for the environment.
If a decision was made to continue burning the temple and effigy, could we look into carbon offsetting?
Perhaps we could burn the effigy and keep the temple in future years? Although you're right to highlight that it is costly to store and Im not sure how packed out our storage onsite already is...