The Full Cost of Fossil Fuels

A new report from the Center for Health and the Human Environment demonstrates clearly that the low price of fossil fuels hides the true cost of the environmental and social damage they cause. The focus of the report is on coal, but the same analysis can be made for oil, natural gas, or other fossil fuels. The environmental, social, and economics costs are immense, as detailed in a 2009 report by Environment America. This does not include the costs to national security and foreign relations, where America's strategic interests are intimately tied to its fossil fuel dependence.

Economic arguments against a concerted and rapid move toward renewable energy sources essentially fall flat when we take these full costs into consideration. And these arguments are only half of the story: minimizing costs has never been and never should be the sole or overriding consideration for how we use energy. As people of faith, we are keenly aware of the moral and spiritual consequences and motivations of our decisions and behavior, and these considerations should weigh just as heavily as economics on our thinking and action. But as this new report shows, translating these considerations into the realm of economics shows just how expensive fossil fuels really are to our environment, our health, and frankly, to our souls.

Caring for the "least of these"...

The great religions of the world all exhort their followers to care for the sick, poor, vulnerable, orphans, the outcast and marginalized of society. Environmental theology, following in the footsteps of environmental ethics and moral philosophy, has sought to expand this sphere of care to the natural world. Global warming and climate change has created a nexus of harm and catastrophe for the poor and vulnerable in both the human and natural worlds. Indeed, it is showing us in a stark and tragic way that the least among us are often those most connected to and thus affected by the health and vitality of the natural world as well as natural disasters and changing environments. Even in highly urban environments of the world's major cities, the poor and vulnerable are still directly affected by the natural world, including weather patterns and changing climates.

As an example, the recent rise in food prices around the world is being largely attributed to extreme weather causing crop failures and significant yield losses in major food producing regions, including Pakistan, China, and Australia. And it is the poor who spend the largest percentage of their income on food who are feeling the pain of rising food prices as a result. This is only exacerbated by inflation related to the resurgence of economic growth for emerging economies like China, India, and Indonesia.

Thus, for the world's faith communities, taking action to slow and stop global warming is a moral imperative for both social and environmental justice and stewardship. The Right Rev. Gregory H. Rickel, Bishop of Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Washington recently wrote an op-ed in The Columbian newspaper about how coal-burning power plants defy our covenant with the Creator, using the exhortations of Jesus to care for the least of these as part of his moral argument. This statement is part of the Washington IPL program's efforts to create a coal-free future for Washington state.

These efforts are never simple and may see monumental and quite daunting. But such campaigns are also not just tilting at windmills (if only they WERE windmills!). Having a moral and ethical commitment to energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy is the foundation for achieving these seemingly outsized and impossible goals. Economics, logistics, inertia, and scary predictions of social collapse may all seem to work against these efforts, but they are no match for the passion, dedication, and hard work of a citizenry motivated to see it become a reality. Hawaii, though small, is providing the nation a workable model for how to achieve such ambitious goals with the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. We should be proud of our ongoing efforts and, frankly, we need more clergy and faith community leaders speaking out on behalf of the moral imperative to work for a clean and renewable energy future as an essential component of fulfilling our religious duties to the least of these. Hawaii Interfaith Power and Light exhorts you to get your faith community involved in these efforts. Contact us to learn how.

Educating Ourselves About Climate Change

A new report from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication shows that although a majority of Americans believe "global warming" (the phrase specifically used) is real, most don't feel they are well-educated about the causes, the risks, and thus the potential solutions. They also feel global warming education should be emphasized more in schools. Perhaps not unexpected, some of those who deny the reality of climate change harbor misconceptions about the nature or certainty of the scientific evidence of climate change and of the accuracy or nature of the predictions from climate change models.

Americans get their information about global warming from a variety of sources, including the internet and family & friends. However, the internet is the source of choice for getting further information. And when it comes to solutions, most Americans state that we should stop using fossil fuels.

What all this means for the Interfaith Power and Light movement is that objective but effective education should be a primary activity of our organization. This should run the gamut from basic information about the evidence, models, and predictions to the potential solutions at a personal, social, and global level. This report points out that despite a strong general awareness of global warming, there is much to be done to provide people the right kind of information so that the awareness and understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change motivate the action necessary to respond to this crisis.

The reluctance of some of our Hawaii faith communities to speak out on climate change likely stems from this lack of clear understanding rather than a skepticism about the science or predictions. Reaching everyone directly is not likely to happen. We need to provide resources and opportunities for those who have the understanding and motivation to educate others in their local communities rather than serving as a single institutional source for information. The message should be clear, consistent, and ubiquitous in our communications as diverse faith communities so that there is no doubt we have a moral obligation to act and we have the confidence to take action that will be effective.

Why climate change is THE environmental issue for faith communities

The world's faith communities are increasingly making stewardship of the planet and our local environment a core value of their faith and a central part of their mission. Their are innumerable local and regional issues of importance, and having local faith communities speak up and act out to let the public and public officials know that these issues are important morally and spiritually can have a significant impact on public debates and policy directions.

For the interfaith power and light community, climate change is THE central environmental issue. This is not because climate change is inherently more important or of immediate concern but rather because climate change is an overarching threat to the health and well-being of natural and human environments. Almost daily, new reports are published demonstrating the wide-ranging and potentially long-term impacts of climate change and excess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The complex interactions of global warming, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and other GHGs, changing weather patterns, and biotic and abiotic responses affect almost every aspect of our environment. For example, increased carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere is soaked up by oceans, creating carbonic acid. This increases the acidity of ocean water, which, when combined with increased sea surface temperatures, is a major contributor to coral bleaching. Warmer springtime temperatures cause earlier flowering and insect activity, which may be out of sync with bird migrations that depend upon nectar and insects as major food sources. Although God's creatures are inherently adaptable, there are physical and geographical limits to these adaptations, and isolated environments like alpine and mountainous areas may be altered irreversibly, causing localized extinction of organisms.

The insidiousness of fossil fuel energy use is that it requires a massive waste of other natural resources. Mountaintop removal in the Appalachians to extract coal permanently alters the landscape and destroys wild and undeveloped ecosystems. Throughout the US now, extraction of natural gas is occurring from shale deposits using a process called fracking that pumps unbelievable amounts of water belowground to break up the bedrock. This is not just a waste of water, it also potentially fouls underground drinking water supplies. Unfortunately, even private landowners often cannot stop this activity, as mining rights were often sold off generations ago. And, of course, catastrophic oil spills still occur, leading to merely temporary bans on specific activities and a shifting of drilling and exploration to other areas.

Of course, humans are not immune to these changes. Glacier melting and earlier snowpack thaw can cause large changes in the water cycle, affecting the quantity, quality, and timing of water availability for agriculture and urban uses. On a large scale, these changes have national and international consequences. Shifting climates alter the crops that can be grown in specific areas. Increased storm activity-winter and summer-increases risks of crop failure and damage to the built environment. And of course, the poor and vulnerable are most at risk of being affected by these impacts on agriculture, water availability, and the built environment.

The failure of national governments and the United Nations to effectively address climate change can be largely attributed to shortsighted self-interest rather than a lack of awareness or understanding of the magnitude and seriousness of the problem. It truly takes an act of faith to make major changes in energy use and energy sources on the scale required to reverse the course of excessive GHG emissions and save the planet and ourselves from the worst potential effects of climate change. It takes communities and leaders with vision, passion, courage, and dedication to do what is necessary to combat climate change. We will indeed need to make sacrifices and become new people, new communities, new societies, transformed in other words, to meet this challenge. Thus, it will truly take people and communities of faith to lead the effort and to inspire us to change our hearts, minds, and action in response to the challenges of climate change.

The good news is that the dividends of such action are both personal and planetary. The religious conversion that is required to adequately respond to climate change can affect all the major environmental issues, from conservation of wild lands and biodiversity to protection of natural resources we use in our daily lives. The less we rely on energy-intensive production of food and other goods, the more we reconnect to the earth itself and to each other as members of an intentional and mindful community. We have let ourselves become passive consumers, trading in the marketplace of ideas and values for the marketplace of dollars and cents. If we continue to expect cheap energy, cheap food, cheap transportation, and cheap entertainment, then that's what we get: a cheapened life and a ruined planet. But if we make the personal, social, and political changes needed to address climate change, we can also experience a better quality of life and a more equitable and just society as well as a healthier planet. So, while we encourage our partners in faith communities to continue to work on all manner of environmental issues, we will continue to prophesy about the curse of climate change and the need for fundamental changes to experience the blessings of a healthy planet and a sustainable society.

Ethics Stronger than Self-Interest in Motivating Action on Climate Change Debate

...excerpts from the Climate Ethics blog...

Are Ethical Arguments for Climate Change Action Weaker Than Self-Interest Based Arguments? Why Taking Ethical Arguments Off the Table Is Like A Soccer Team Unilaterally Taking The Goalie Out of the Net.

By DONALD A BROWN on August 15, 2010 6:58 PM

I. Introduction

Many commentators to ClimateEthics argue that since people are self-interested beings, it is more important to make arguments in support of climate change based upon self-interest rather than ethical arguments. Some go so far to assert that people don't care about ethics and therefore only self-interest-based arguments should be used to convince people to enact domestic climate change legislation. In other words, they argue:"get real" only self-interest arguments matter.

This view has dominated much discussion of climate change policy in the United States. No U.S. politician known to ClimateEthics has been expressly making the ethical arguments that need to be made in response to objections to proposed climate change policies. As ClimateEthics has previously reported, this is not the case in at least a few other parts of the world. See [previous post].

Almost all arguments in the United States in support of climate change policies have been different self-interest based arguments such as climate change policies will protect the United States against adverse climate caused damages in the United States, create good green jobs, or are necessary to prevent national security risks to the United States that might be created if millions of people become refugees fleeing diminished water supplies or droughts that are adversely affecting food supplies. There are no known politically visible arguments being made in the United States that argue that the United States should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions because it has duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others. In particular, there has been no coverage of the specific ethical arguments for climate change legislation in the mainstream media except with a very few infrequent exceptions.

II. The Strength of Ethical Arguments In Support of Climate Change Policies.

We have explained many times in ClimateEthics why climate change not only creates issues of self-interest but also duties, responsibilities to others. In summary fashion, this is so because: (a) climate change is a problem caused by some people that most harshly harms others, (b) the harms to others are likely to be catastrophic under business-as-usual, (c) because of the global scope of the problem and the inability of victims of climate change to petition their own governments to protect them, only with successful appeals to the ethics of foreigners can the victims of climate change hope to get protective action, and, (d) obligations to future generations are part of the prescriptive calculus. Given that climate change raises not only self-interest questions but matters about which there are duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others ethical arguments are stronger than self-interest arguments in the following ways:

(a) Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Policies.

Once one sees the ethical obligations to others one easily sees the duty to think about scientific uncertainty of climate change impacts through the lens of the victims. This is particularly important because it is those who will most harshly be harmed by climate change impacts that have the most to loose if the mainstream climate change view turns out to be correct. In fact, the victims of climate change have the strongest interest in seriously considering the possibility of potential but unproven catastrophic harms actually happening and have the most to loose by waiting until all uncertainties are resolved...The decision to do nothing in the face of uncertainty could have consequences and those consequences will most harshly be experienced by those most vulnerable, that is the poorest people in parts of the world most vulnerable to harsh climate change impacts.

(b) Economic and Cost Arguments

Particularly in response to cost arguments made in opposition to climate change policies ethical arguments have an important resonance and for some arguments are the only way of showing deficiencies with cost-based arguments in opposition to climate change policies. Examples of this are the following:

(1) Once one sees ethical duties to others it is easier to understand what is wrong with many cost arguments made against climate change policies. For instance, during the debate about the Kyoto Protocol, the United States governess only considered two cost-benefit analyses that looked only at costs and benefits to the United States alone. In other words, the United States acted as if only costs and benefits to the United States counted.

(3) Only an ethical appeal to duties of future generations can correct the usual approach followed in cost-benefit analyses to discount the value of benefits that are experienced in future in such away that the future benefits are virtually worthless in the present. Fort this reason, only an appeal to duties to future generations can demonstrate problems with disenfranchising future generations' interests in discounting methods commonly followed in cost-benefit analysis based arguments made in opposition to climate change policies.

(5) Because climate change impacts can interfere with the basic human rights of the victims of climate change, only an appeal to the ethical duty to avoid human rights violations can effectively deal with some of the arguments against climate change action based upon cost. It is well established in international law that increased cost to those who are responsible for human rights violations may not be used as a justification for continuing human rights violations.

(6) Only an appeal to ethics and justice can correct the tendency of many cost arguments to reduce the value of everything harmed to their market value...Cost arguments against climate change policies often determine the value of climate change harms avoided on the basis of market values alone, that is on the basis of "willingness-to-pay" alone. For instance, some cost-benefit analyses relied upon by some opponents of climate change action have assumed that the value of lives lost by foreigners to be the earning power in the remaining lives of the people who will be killed thus making the value of the lives of poor people less valuable that people in rich countries. Only an appeal to ethics can demonstrate why this may be unjust.

(d) Responsibility for Damages

Many principles of international law make polluting nations responsible for damages caused by harm they cause others in proportion to their contribution to the problem. For instance, in international law the "no-harm" and "polluter-pays" principles have been agreed to by the the United States in a variety of soft-law documents and in the case of the "no harm" principle in binding law under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty ratified by the United States under the George Bush the First in 1993...If the Untied States is worried about economic impacts of climate change it should be worried particularly about the implications of ethical rules that would allocate responsibility for damages. This is a matter of retributive justice, not self-interest.

III-Conclusion

Because the ethical arguments discussed above are the strongest arguments for climate change policy, it is both a practical mistake as well as an ethical failure to not frame climate change policy options through an ethical lens.

By:

Donald A. Brown
Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law
Dab57@psu.edu

Christian Response to Senate Inaction

...from the latest Eco-Justice Notes by Peter Sawtell

Jesus and the Climate Bill

distributed 7/30/10 - ©2010

This week's issue of Eco-Justice Notes is underwritten by Sarah Johnson, of Denver, Colorado. Her generous support helps make this publication possible.

The US Senate has given up on any pretense of developing a comprehensive climate and energy bill this summer. "Disappointed" just does not capture my reaction at this point. More vivid words are needed: angry, disgusted, frustrated and grief-stricken.

So what do we do now?

Without being trite or sarcastic, I find two pieces of contradictory advice from Jesus about how to deal with times of great hurt and disappointment. There is truth in two recommendations about intractable situations.

• "If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them." (Mark 6:11)


• "Peter came and said to him, 'Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.'" (Matthew 18:21-22)

Which shall we do? Give up on a hopeless cause, or be persistent and forgiving in the relationship? Perhaps it is best to do some of each.

+ + + + +

I presume that most readers of these Notes see the failure of the Senate to deal with climate as genuinely sinful. It is a sin against God and the creation.

Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Orthodox Churches, has written, "To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin ... for humans to contaminate the earth's water, its land, its air, and its life with poisonous substances ... these are sins." So, too, it is a sin when our national leaders refuse to act on the most essential matters addressing the crisis of global heating.

It is sin, and as people of faith, we must be ready to forgive, even when the sin is great and recurring. Not just seven times, but seventy-seven times. (If you're keeping count of the votes and the public statements, you probably need to forgive on the 78th time, too.)

But forgiveness does not mean that we are passive. Luke's version of the "forgive seven times" theme includes an important dimension. "If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive." (Luke 17:3) Even when it happens seven times in one day. (The apostles replied, "Increase our faith!")

When we are witnesses to sin, we must rebuke the offender. We must announce the sin, and call for repentance. It is faithful and appropriate to hold accountable those who stymied any consideration of climate provisions in this summer's energy legislation. It is fair to challenge those Senators who would have supported a strong bill, but who never took action among their colleagues to make such legislation politically viable.

(By way of disclosure, both of the Senators from my home state, Colorado, probably would have voted for the potential climate provisions. Each of our Senators exercised some leadership on related issues. They were not the most prominent leaders in the cause, but did some decent things. Thanks are appropriate, too.)

"Rebuking" is one form of action that is being encouraged by the climate action groups that I respect. Contact your Senators, and other Senate leaders. Let them know that you are angry and disappointed -- perhaps by their personal stance, and certainly by the Senate's collective failure. (As people of faith, we can speak theologically about how their failure to act is sinful.) When the Senators are back home for the August recess, show up at their public events (called "shadowing" to make statements, and to ask questions about their stance on climate.

That is one side of our action. Rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, forgive.

+ + + + +

There is also truth in the advice Jesus gave to those sent out to preach. If a community refuses to hear you, go elsewhere.

For more than a decade, significant action on climate has been more than the Senate can handle. There are all sorts of reasons for that, ranging from pure partisan divisiveness, to corporate influence, to the misbegotten sense that the job of a Senator is to deliver short-term goodies to the state. There is little sense of gracious statesmanship which looks to the long-term common good. As many people have said recently, the Senate is broken.

If comprehensive legislation that will start to coordinate US action on climate is too hard for the Senate, then shake the dust from our feet, and go elsewhere. Don't give up, but go to work somewhere that can make a difference. There are many realms for our action.

Continued political advocacy will be needed to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency can develop rules constraining greenhouse gasses. If Congress cannot or will not pass proactive climate legislation, then administrative action must be taken. We must witness -- to politicians, and within our communities -- about our support of strong new EPA rules to enforce the Clean Air Act.

The US government is not the only place where action is being taken. Cities and states are moving toward a wide range of effective actions that address the climate crisis. They are defining standards for renewable energy, making bold decisions that block new coal fired power plants, developing strong new building codes, and reworking transportation infrastructure. States and provinces are creating "cap and trade" systems that embody what has been impossible at the national level. We can make a difference by being engaged locally and regionally where success is possible.

Part of the Senate's paralysis comes from procedural rules that are being abused. The filibuster used to be a rare tool engaged in extraordinary times, but it has become so common that virtually any action in the Senate now needs 60 votes. Action to reform Senate rules (or to have consequences for the misuse of those rules) might make it possible for the US Congress to move on climate legislation in the future.

We also need to remember that the political realm, while important, is not the only place where we can act. We can use investments to shape business policies. We can call for our friends and neighbors to join us as we seek to live more gently and justly as part of the Earth community. We can educate about the reality of climate change and other ecological threats. We can preach good news about the hope to be found in sustainable living.

+ + + + +

Two thousand years ago, Jesus wasn't describing political strategies to be used in the heart of a global empire to address an unfolding ecological crisis. But he was talking about how to be both faithful and strategic in doing God's work in the world. His advice holds true, even about how to respond when the US Senate fails to do what is most important.

Rebuke, and be willing to forgive. Go to work where you can make a difference.

As the apostles said, "increase our faith!" so that we, too, might do that work.

Shalom!

Peter Sawtell
Executive Director
Eco-Justice Ministries

The Senate's Moral Responsibility on Climage Change

from the national Interfaith Power and Light website...

Senate has Moral Responsibility to Act On Climate Change
Published: July 23, 2010

Statement by Interfaith Power & Light’s President, The Rev. Canon Sally G. Bingham

SAN FRANCISCO (July 23, 2010) – Senate leadership announced yesterday that, after months of work to craft legislation, the Senate will not take up a comprehensive energy and climate bill before the August Recess. What follows is a reaction by Interfaith Power & Light’s President, The Rev. Canon Sally G. Bingham:

“‘Where are the ears to hear and the eyes to see?’ This year we have witnessed an oil spill of epic proportions inflicting tragic environmental and economic devastation throughout the Gulf of Mexico. We have seen yet another deadly coal mining tragedy, and we have lived through the hottest six months on record. But instead of moving to address climate change and support clean energy alternatives, our senators have allowed the oil and coal lobbies to once again stall meaningful action.

“Where is the moral integrity of our elected officials? Is our representative democracy so broken? Are our elected representatives incapable of addressing the greatest environmental crisis of our generation? People of faith have urged our senators to act, and to invest in alternatives to burning oil and coal. Polls indicate Americans want a strong climate bill that addresses global warming, but our leaders are not listening, and they are not seeing. We are still waiting, and indeed, the world is waiting.

“During the August recess, Interfaith Power and Light will mobilize thousands of people of faith to demand that our senators not give up. Our senators and President Obama have a responsibility not just to do what is easy, or what is politically expedient, but to do what is right. It is time for moral leadership. They must go back to Washington in September, roll up their sleeves, and pass a cap on global warming pollution. Our future, and the future of all of creation, depends on it.”