Human Rights and Climate Change Policy

Reposting a concise article on how a human rights framework can help inform climate change policy (link). The moral dimensions of climate change extend beyond providing a motivation for taking action; they also include what kinds of action we should take. Traditional religious ethics and mission work are particularly relevant to these discussions.

Making Climate Change THE Political Issue

A recent poll illustrated the rapid turn-around in public opinion on the reality of human-caused climate change and the need for action (link). While the poll segregated respondents into their preferences for the 2012 Presidential election, it is clear that a majority of the American people are ready and willing for national leadership and action on climate change. While opponents (and frankly, supporters) of such action are keen to use climate change as a polarizing or "wedge" issue, I think there is a convergence of issues and national sentiment that can make addressing climate change a central policy theme for the next Congress and Presidential administrations. Here's why:

1. Building a 21st-century infrastructure.
The aging of America's infrastructure–roads, electricity generation and distribution, water and sewer, etc–has become well-publicized in the past few years. Upgrades and replacements are desperately needed, and state and local governments recognize the economic stimulus these projects generate. Coupling the need for infrastructure improvements with climate change and sustainable resource use is a no-brainer. It's not just taking care of present needs, it's building for the future. The economic, social, and environmental benefits (i.e. "sustainability") of past efforts to improve resource efficiency (energy, water, waste management) are undeniable. We need a national effort to remake America's infrastructure–from local to international–that links the needs of people and the planet together to achieve a sustainable and just future.

2.  Regaining leadership in exportable green technologies.
Renewable energy, organic agriculture, industrial ecology, green architecture, smart growth, and many others. These areas of sustainable R&D should be promoted as the future we want for ourselves and frankly the only future that will support a just and prosperous planet of 9+ billion people. The US is not the only or even the most important innovator or promoter of these technologies, but we are uniquely capable of developing, testing, and promoting these technologies for different purposes and situations, from dense urban cities to rural agricultural areas. We should bring the best minds and best innovators from around the world here to develop these technologies, then export them, through private enterprise and development projects. Given that China has recently surpassed the US as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, this outward-looking approach is probably going to be more important than what we do to reduce our domestic GHG emissions.

3. National security and foreign relations.
Even those who support more domestic fossil fuel production recognize the fact that importing fossil fuels is a major contributor to our expensive (economically and socially) military adventures around the globe. While drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have no discernible effect of gas prices (since oil prices are set by global production and trade), replacing fossil fuels with domestically produced renewable energy sources will improve our national security. It won't solve all our international disputes and entanglements, but it will help both in the short- and the long-run. Since countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are heavily dependent upon oil exports, moving to renewable energy production globally will force economic and social transformations in these countries. It won't be easy or pretty in most cases, but the transformations will arise internally, taking away the rallying cry of "foreign devils" or meddling interventions that keep oppressive regimes in power. It will also transform US foreign policy and strategic interests, which is a major cause of US-directed terrorism. Terrorism as an instrument of rebellion and civil unrest is here to stay, but the justifications for our "war on terror", which does nothing but feed the hatred of our foreign policy and military adventurism, will largely evaporate. We will have the capacity to remake our global alliances based on peace, democracy, freedom, and justice rather than shared economic or military interests. This extends beyond countries that are fossil fuel producers to those whose export industries are reliant on cheap fossil fuels, such as agriculture and heavy manufacturing.

4. A future of our choosing
Notice I haven't mentioned sacrifices in consumption or standards of living. Achieving a sustainable future and ending anthropogenic climate change will require significant changes in our lifestyles, but if there's anything that is constant in the universe, it is change. In the past, such changes were driven by large economic and social forces, and we reacted to them. The Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, two world wars, the rise of personal computing and the internet, the oil crisis of the 70's, the 9-11 attacks: these were all major events that forced us to undergo big changes in our lifestyles. Anthropogenic climate change is the next emerging major force, and we are going to have to adapt to it. If we are proactive, we can co-create a future that advances prosperity, justice, peace, and a greater quality of life for everyone on the planet. If we continue to be reactive, then we have little control over the outcomes and will find ourselves increasingly frustrated and powerless. Tea Party activists are promoting personal choice and freedoms. I agree, but real choice and freedom come from working together within communities to build the kind of society that allows us to make those choices. The message of politicians who want to address climate change should be that government can and should be a leader in helping to shape and build that future that allows us to enjoy the freedoms embodied in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution. Continuing our dependence on a fossil fuel-driven economy and society not only is counter to the goals of freedom, it is undermining the sustainability of a prosperous and just future for people and the planet.

Peak Oil is the Least of our Worries

Bill McKibben has written another powerful and chilling piece on climate change, this time in Rolling Stone magazine (link). In it he highlights a few very important numbers concerning fossil fuels and climate change. The scariest one is the amount of carbon stored in known reserves of fossil fuels on the planet, 2795 Gigatons. That dwarfs the amount the atmosphere can handle and maintain any reasonable temperature increase due to global warming (which scientists set at about 2 degrees Celcius). Prior to the latest economic bubble bust, the concept of peak oil was getting a lot of coverage due to the concern about increasing demand and prices relative to known oil reserves. Now that frakking has made billions if not trillions of cubic feet of natural gas available for mining, no one much talks about peak oil anymore. Even if frakking hadn't opened up new natural gas reserves, the world has enough coal to keep polluting the skies and running Industrial Age economies for a century or more.

Economists often like to take a value-neutral stance when it comes to such issues as global warming, assuring us that human ingenuity, market forces, and advances in technology will cure what ails us. But what McKibben has made clear is that the no invisible and price-driven hand will be able to avert the global-scale catastrophes that global warming is already causing. With past progressive movements, such as the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women and minorities, and protection of the environment, economists may point to things like changing economic and technological forces that made slavery and suppression of women's full participation as workers and consumers inefficient and uneconomical and fouling of the environment counter-productive and unnecessary. While interesting, it assumes changing economics and technology are necessary (if not sufficient) for societies to take effective action. 

Regardless of what you think of that argument in general, global warming and climate change simply cannot wait for market forces or technological shifts to make the move away from fossil fuel use toward renewable energy production and sustainable economies inevitable or more efficient. Such changes must be spurred by the moral call to action and the political will to do what is right, not what is expedient. That is why people of faith cannot sit on the sidelines on this issue or urge patience and moderation, as southern ministers asked of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the fight for civil rights. The continuing struggle to overcome ingrained predjudice against minorities and women, e.g. unequal pay, home loan discrimination, and voter ID laws, all speak to the need for a strong moral foundation to ensure we uphold the ideals of the nation and the values we hold most dear as people of faith. Bill McKibben's latest essay not only reinforces the importance of global warming and energy use as moral issues but moreover the need for people of faith to speak out and take action to make it a personal, social, and political priority.

The Bogeyman of Higher Prices

The previous blog summarized the perspective of a conservative environmentalist who argues for tackling climate change. One of the tactics he proposes, which is anathema to conservatives bullied by tea party activists and Grover Norquist, is to impose a hefty tax on activities that generate greenhouse gases. Economists generally agree that this is a pretty effective way to get people to voluntarily change their behavior. For example, taxes on tobacco products have been shown to have disproportionate effects on smoking by teens, since they don't generally have the same amount of discretionary income as working adults. The increase in the price of gasoline due to the increased cost of oil has led to declines in miles driven in the US and a shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles.  In the medium-term, it should affect commuting habits and even suburban sprawl (although the housing crisis has been pretty effective, as well).


Although advocates for tackling climate change see this as good news, the economic concern is that higher prices for basic goods like electricity and transportation fuels take money away from other economic activities and increase the cost of most other manufactured goods. This is especially true in Hawaii, where most of our goods are imported over the ocean in large container ships. It's also disproportionately hard on the poor and small businesses. Thus, the ways in which we tackle climate change matter from a moral and religious perspective. Fairness, justice, and care for the poor and vulnerable are relevant values to consider alongside stewardship of Creation.


Having lived in California and now Hawaii, I know first-hand how a high cost of living constrains your choices in life and can be a real burden for those who are poor and economically insecure. At the same time, I know that people will voluntarily make tremendous sacrifices to achieve what they most value in life, including moving to California and Hawaii to enjoy the opportunities and quality of life they offer. Money is not the most important thing in life by a long shot, and our stewardship of Creation is or at least should be one of those basic things that is more important than money. 


As people of faith, we need to make and stress that argument when confronted with the "higher prices" bogeyman. Even within an economic perspective, our choices of how to spend our money should reflect the value we get from those expenditures. Just as the cost of sin taxes are justified by the tremendous benefits, we need to make the argument that taxing and regulating greenhouse gas emissions will yield tremendous social benefits to the things that really matter to us, things that we are willing to (and indeed do) sacrifice for all the time. At the same time, we should be aware of how these increased costs affect the poor and vulnerable, providing mechanisms to reduce this burden so that they don't have to make the choice of whether to eat or pay the electricity bill. There are numerous ways to address these concerns, and faith communities have a long history of direct action and advocacy for change in these areas. Thus, the IPL network can play an important role in the public conversation, the policy debates, and the concrete actions to change hearts and minds, change behavior, change institutions, and thereby change the world for the better.

Conservative's Take On Climate Change

Jonathan Adler writes an interesting piece on a conservative approach to dealing with climate change in The Atlantic (link). His justification comes from one of personal responsibility, a core conservative value, and tries to minimize the role of government in direct decision-making or picking winners and losers. He recognizes the special vulnerability of poor people and nations and our duty to do no harm to them through our collective actions. He also provides copious links to conservative pieces written about climate change previously, most of which criticize mainstream liberal approaches to dealing with climate change.


This piece is quite valuable for providing a positive conservative perspective on dealing with climate change. It is irresponsible to continue denying, decrying, demonizing, or denigrating the fact of climate change, its importance, and the need to take action. Many complementary approaches are needed to deal with the myriad technological, social, economic, and political challenges climate change present. These approaches may have different practical advantages and disadvantages, but for people of faith, they also represent a diversity of moral and religious justifications and motivations. For liberal Christians, taking action on climate change is a no-brainer. For conservative Christians, there have not been enough people like Adler to outline how their distinctive moral and religious values and perspectives translates into positive action and policy decisions on climate change. The discourse has been dominated by negativity, which is at the very least unsatisfying for conservatives who still feel the moral and religious injustices of human-caused climate change.

Personally, I think the social conscience of America is moving inevitably toward not only an acceptance of the reality of climate change but also the consensus that we need to make fundamental changes to deal with it. Thinkers like Adler are providing the groundwork for a perspective and approach on how we can respond to climate change that upholds the values that are important to political and religious conservatives. With an agreement on the need to act, we can then work together across the religious and political landscape to make a difference. In the end, that will be much more effective and more acceptable than trying to go it alone or fighting all the way.

Climate Change is Risky for Insurance Companies

Ceres posted a joint press release with insurance company executives about the potential business costs of climate change for the industry (link). Losses from natural disasters caused by extreme weather events doubled in 2011, and projections from the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment (link) predict climate change is only going to continue or worsen this level of damage. This affects not just poor and vulnerable communities in developing countries—who are highly unlikely to be insured, anyway—but middle-class and wealthy communities in the US and other countries who do have private insurance. And that means not only increased premiums but also less favorable coverage and less competition in the marketplace. Thus, although we at Interfaith Power and Light emphasize issues of justice and stewardship with respect to climate change, the insurance risks illustrate once again that doing the right thing is also doing the prudent thing and ultimately the sustainable thing for ourselves, others, and the planet.

Public Voice: Some Sociological Explanations for Climate Change Denial

Sociologist Roger Kramer gives a detailed academic explanation for the type of climate denial I've written about previously on this blog. See the blog Public Voice: Some Sociological Explanations for Climate Change Denial
His recommendations, thankfully, are the same I've been promoting for IP&L: a prophetic voice to speak to the moral and justice issues related to how we respond to the implications and challenges of climate change. Too often we can get caught up in our daily lives and personal responsibilities to see the need for brave action, for self-sacrifice that requires us to give up the pursuit of comfort, stability, and even safety to work for the greater good. That was exactly what Jesus asked of his disciples: not just the 12 Apostles but all those who came to him, wanting to know what they could do to become his followers. Climate change is not the only moral and justice issue facing people of faith, but it is and will continue to be an important one. Climate deniers are not fools or idiots; they are people with hardened hearts who refuse to see the truth in its fullness. Kramer provides an academic perspective on this phenomenon, which can help us to understand and deconstruct it. Perhaps it can help us craft a wiser and more effective response to melt the hearts of those who continue to deny the truth of climate change; the 12 plagues of Egypt may seem quaint by comparison if we fail.

Frakking Up the Environment

Bill McKibben delivers a powerful essay once again with a review of two books on the local social and environmental costs of hydraulic fracturing ("frakking"). Since Hawaii doesn't import natural gas (although it is manufactured from processing of imported oil), HIPL hasn't made much of the boom in frakking activity on the mainland US. However, increasing evidence is demonstrating the significant and potentially long-term health and environmental effects of this extraction process. Bill's use of phrases like "ripping apart the earth" clearly indicate where his heart lies, but it is the accumulation of evidence and anecdotes of fouled drinking water wells, contaminated streams, unhealthy air pollution in rural communities, and the growing social and environmental costs that are hardly paid for by the royalty payments for allowing drilling. The key point McKibben makes for the IP&L network, however, is that natural gas obtainable through this process is abundant, not just domestically but globally. Far from being a "bridge" fuel to a truly clean and renewable energy future, it's just another version of the same drug that's keeping us addicted to profligate energy use.


What struck me about the piece, however, was not the sad conclusion that energy companies and politicians are not serious about moving beyond fossil fuels but rather the tolerance we continue to have for "ripping apart the earth" in the name of cheap energy. Read his piece about the frakking process and then reflect for just a minute. It seems like the height of blindered self-ignorance to think this ravaging process wouldn't cause serious environmental harm, especially when multiplied across the landscape in the largely unregulated fashion in which it has taken place. And like coal mining via mountaintop removal, this process is both aesthetically and frankly morally ugly. You don't have to anthropomorphize the planet to see the revolting nature of hydraulic fracturing.
Think of it this way. If photovoltaics or wind power or wave power or biomass energy used processes anything like frakking, do you think they would be acceptable alternatives to fossil fuels? The only renewable energy source that is remotely similar to oil or gas mining is geothermal, and that is enough to limit its development here in Hawaii. The potential impacts of large solar arrays or wind farms on wildlife are sufficient for communities and interest groups to take action to limit these impacts or ensure proper regulation, siting, and mitigation, which is appropriate. But these pale in comparison to the far-reaching impacts of climate change on plants, animals, people, and the planet, as well as the more localized land, air, and water pollution impacts. We would simply never tolerate these kinds of unintended consequences of renewable energy development, yet we turn a blind eye to the real and potential harm being done by fossil fuels.


There is no defense, no justification, no denying, and no acceptable trade-off for these effects. It is simply immoral to think or argue otherwise. We do not need to exploit fossil fuels in this way to thrive or survive as a nation and not even to a basic standard of living for 7 or even 10 billion people. Energy use is ultimately a moral choice and not a technological one, from the source to the processing to how and how much of it we use as individuals, families, and communities. The stories of frakking that McKibben reviews are the same stories of immorality and greed cloaked in the guise of development and public benefit found throughout history, literature, and the sacred texts of the world's great religions. And the lessons of those stories and wisdom from those texts are just as relevant today. We may feel overwhelmed at times by the pace and scope of the challenges before us, but so did the prophets of old who often had no more than a calling from God and a passion for truth, justice, and the realization of the sacred relationship between God and Creation, a relationship that was mirrored in our relations among each other and all of Creation. We do not have to be subject-matter experts or philosophers and theologians to discern the morality of the choices before us and to make the right choices for ourselves and our communities. If our motivation is grounded in a deep and abiding faith, then God will provide a way for us to realize the kingdom of peace, love, and mercy here on earth.

Climate Change Isn't the "Issue"

Naomi Klein has written an excellent piece at The Nation on why climate change isn't really the issue, politically speaking, but rather the entire capitalist politico-economic system. Interestingly, it is climate deniers who have made this explicit by claiming, and rightly so, that those who champion a comprehensive response to climate change are really attacking the foundations of American-style capitalism. Klein points out that it isn't just American capitalism that is responsible for excessive release of greenhouse gases, but certainly our way of structuring and running the economy will have to fundamentally change to achieve the necessary reductions.

Those of us aligned with Interfaith Power and Light agree. That's why we claim this is fundamentally a moral issue, i.e. it is about our basic values and the choices we make to realize and promote those values. A deep examination of our faith traditions reveals the immorality of what we are doing to the planet and ultimately to each other as a result of climate change. As Klein herself states, climate change is the message, the outward sign of an inward corruption that has to be transformed. And such fundamental transformations are inextricably linked to our basic moral worldview. And make no mistake, making these changes will require a deep faith: faith to commit us to the changes, faith that collectively we can move mountains (or refrain from "removing" them, in the case of coal mining), and that God's grace will be sufficient for us to prevent the degradation and destruction of the beauty and integrity of Creation.

Doubters of Jesus asked for a sign of his divinity, but he rebuked them, knowing that their doubt lay not in their skepticism of his power but rather a rejection of the meaning and consequences of his message. The same is true of climate deniers. Klein's article points out what IPL has known all along: that the core of opposition to climate science is not the demand for unequivocal outward signs of the reality of climate change but rather of the fundamental changes that are required of us to respond to it. It appears the core of this argument is now being laid bare, which is a good thing. It means we can start to have a moral, social, economic, and most importantly a political debate about the kinds of changes that are needed. Klein describes several that she thinks are necessary, and those are a good start. But I think it will take a faithful commitment to making changes and faith that our changes can make a difference for us to effectively respond to this unfolding crisis. Inspiring people of faith, therefore, is what IP&L is all about.

Why Climate Change "Alternatives" Aren't

Although the anthropogenic basis of climate change has been the conclusion from multiple Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, there continue to be scientists who challenge this conclusion. Some of these scientists are reputable in their own fields, and thus their criticisms carry a lot of weight for reasonable people as well as politicians who feel threatened by the moral imperative to action that such a conclusion demands. That bloggers, social activists, and politicians continue to be climate deniers is no surprise; we still have plenty of opponents of evolution populating government executive offices, legislatures, and school boards, not just pulpits or church hierarchies. I never paid much attention to these critical scientists because the evidence was overwhelming, and regardless, the main driver of anthropogenic climate change-fossil fuel burning-is demonstrably harmful on so many levels that we have a moral imperative to move to a renewable energy future even without the devastating effects on the climate.
However, a conversation with a reasonable and well-educated person led to him providing me a list of what appear to be the most credible scientists and alternative theories. I felt compelled to investigate this list as a personal response, but that response has general relevance, so I adapted it for this blog entry.

First, let's reflect briefly on the 4th IPCC assessment report (reports available here), in particular, the Summary for Policymakers. The report summarizes the estimated effects of various large-scale influences on regional and global climate, called "forcings", and incorporates them into model predictions of various climate-related phenomena, such as average temperature, sea level, snow cover, etc. These forcings include greenhouse gases (GHGs), ozone, surface albedo, and others that are influenced by human activity, i.e. have an anthropogenic component. It also includes solar irradiance, which is outside our control. Some forcings were left out as they were not considered to have an important effect on climate. The basic but overwhelming conclusions of the reports are that global warming is real, and that anthropogenic increases in GHGs (i.e. "we") are responsible.

Despite all of this, there are plenty of PhD-trained scientists openly questioning the theory itself, not just its internal particulars. At this point, however, to engage in credible external criticism requires a credible alternative that deals with the perceived flaws of the accepted theory. There are a number of alternatives out there, and I suggest those interested in them check out realclimate.org for a cogent scientific discussion of many of them. In general, most of the alternatives are really attempts to propose that specific climate forcings, many of which are considered in the IPCC assessments, are more important than the scientific consensus suggests they are. Thus, they primarily represent areas where new research and understanding can improve the models we have (and improve future IPCC assessments) rather than displace the well-established theory based on increased GHGs.

For a theory to pose a true alternative, it must be a radical break from our current understanding. Think of Einstein's general theory of relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics. Think of Darwin's theory of evolution. These are clearly far-reaching scientific revolutions, but they epitomize what a real alternative would look like in climate science. The models we have now are based on such a wide array of evidence, theory, mechanisms, and understanding that a true alternative must posit a new conceptual basis for understanding how climate works and then show how it better handles the problems, flaws, and inconsistencies of the current theory. That's not to say our current theory is perfect or that predictions won't change; they will. However, it is highly unlikely that we will discover or conclude that the earth isn't actually warming or that it isn't caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions. In a similar fashion, we are unlikely to conclude that natural selection doesn't lead to changes in population genetics or long-term speciation, but we do hope to improve our understanding and ability to predict those changes.

The fact that reasonable people still refuse to accept the IPCC assessment conclusions or point to alternative theories as plausible explanations has more to do about grappling with the moral implications of climate change than of the science itself (see former post). And that's the value and mission of the IPL network: to help people deal with the moral dimensions and practical actions. But every so often, we do need to address the scientific questions to reassure people that the theory is sound and the rational basis for action is well-supported.