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.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Christian Response to Senate Inaction
...from the latest Eco-Justice Notes by Peter Sawtell
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.
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
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
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
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.”
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.”
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Economics of Climate Change Lacks a Human Dimension
Paul Krugman does a thorough job of summarizing the somewhat daunting economic complexities of climate change policies in a recent New York Times magazine article (nyti.ms/agKlpe). While he certainly does a nice job of encapsulating a lot of information and concepts, his truly global analysis misses the trees for the forest, if I can badly coin a phrase. The real possibility of increased weather extremes, coastal flooding and sea level rise, ocean acidification and coral reef decline, and regional changes in weather and climate in developing countries and vulnerable areas, such as the polar regions, are the missing moral argument for immediate and strong action on climate change policy. Farmers in Iowa might be able to switch to growing more subtropical varieties of corn, and urban dwellers can better insulate their homes and turn up the A/C, but it's people and places at the margins, with little flexibility and who are forecasted to bear the brunt of climate change impacts, who will be the real victims of our past transgressions and current inaction.
The human impacts of climate change introduce an important moral dimension that is needed in the largely economic debate over climate change policies. Conservatives and opponents of taking action have certainly used this tactic (harming small businesses and job creation) for their own purposes. It is time those of us who want aggressive action used those same arguments. Impacts of climate change on global GDP will likely be low because those who are generally most affected by socially disruptive actions are "the least of these" and do not generally contribute much to money-oriented economic calculations. A similar assessment was made for the regional economic impact of the 2004 South Asian tsunami (http://tinyurl.com/y3znu3y). From the article, "...despite the unprecedented scale of the loss of human life, homelessness and displaced populations, it seems that the macro economic impact of the disaster is marginal. The businesses affected were small, local and often part of local subsistence rather than global supply and this reflects, to a large degree, the economic mix of activities and companies in those coastal, often rural, areas."
Speaking up for the "human impact" has traditionally been the responsibility of the world's faith communities and religious leaders. So it should be with climate change.
The human impacts of climate change introduce an important moral dimension that is needed in the largely economic debate over climate change policies. Conservatives and opponents of taking action have certainly used this tactic (harming small businesses and job creation) for their own purposes. It is time those of us who want aggressive action used those same arguments. Impacts of climate change on global GDP will likely be low because those who are generally most affected by socially disruptive actions are "the least of these" and do not generally contribute much to money-oriented economic calculations. A similar assessment was made for the regional economic impact of the 2004 South Asian tsunami (http://tinyurl.com/y3znu3y). From the article, "...despite the unprecedented scale of the loss of human life, homelessness and displaced populations, it seems that the macro economic impact of the disaster is marginal. The businesses affected were small, local and often part of local subsistence rather than global supply and this reflects, to a large degree, the economic mix of activities and companies in those coastal, often rural, areas."
Speaking up for the "human impact" has traditionally been the responsibility of the world's faith communities and religious leaders. So it should be with climate change.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Solar Home Tours
This Saturday (March 28), local solar companies RevoluSun and Sunetric are hosting open house tours of homes in Lanikai and Kailua that have installed photovoltaic and/or solar hot water systems on their properties (Star-Bulletin article). This is a great opportunity to learn about home solar systems, talk to homeowners and installers, ask questions about installation and financing, and begin the journey toward installing solar for your own household, business, or faith community buildings. The Star-Bulletin article also has links to resources for those interested in installing a solar system for their home.
Broad Public Support for Utility-Scale Solar
A new poll has found broad public support for utility-scale solar farms on federal lands (original article). The poll was commissioned to determine public support for US Department of Interior plans to fast-track a number of solar power plant proposals on federal lands in the western US. One of the main advantages of large solar farms is that they can be built quickly because they don't require huge facilities like traditional steam turbine-driven power plants.
That said, building utility-scale solar plants is preferable to more fossil fuel-powered plants. For those of us in condos or apartment buildings who can't generate our own electricity, having the option of purchasing electricity from a renewable energy source is the next best thing. With these favorable poll results, the hope is that the federal government will support private and public investment in renewable energy projects at all scales.
Hawaii Interfaith Power and Light generally supports distributed energy production, e.g. household- or business-scale solar. By putting power in the hands of the people, we have not only control over our own energy production but also the responsibility to manage our own energy demands. Distributed energy production makes clear the direct link between energy demand and energy production. Such systems are also buffered against grid failure, power plant disruptions, and of course utility rate increases.
That said, building utility-scale solar plants is preferable to more fossil fuel-powered plants. For those of us in condos or apartment buildings who can't generate our own electricity, having the option of purchasing electricity from a renewable energy source is the next best thing. With these favorable poll results, the hope is that the federal government will support private and public investment in renewable energy projects at all scales.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Stimulus Money to Help Finance Kahuku Wind Farm
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is providing $117 million to help finance the construction of the 30-MegaWatt wind farm in Kahuku. The construction is expected to support 200 jobs, with 6-10 full-time positions after completion...more at the Honolulu Advertiser.
Although First Wind has held meetings with the community, there are concerns by neighbors of noise pollution and shadows broadcast by the more than 200-foot tall turbine towers. A 1000-foot buffer requirement that is being proposed in the state legislature (Senate Bill 2526) may not be sufficient to minimize these impacts, but there are other procedures and regulations in place to deal with these concerns...more at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Help for Financing Home Solar Systems
The state of Hawaii is considering employing a "Property Assessed Clean Energy" bond fund to provide loans to homeowners to pay for the cost of installing solar hot water and photovoltaic electricity systems. The loans would be repaid through property tax assessments, and the loan would stay with the property, not the homeowner. Although there are concerns it would add to the state's debt, helping homeowners overcome the barrier of the high upfront costs would create green jobs and strengthen Hawaii's still small but rapidly growing renewable energy sector...more at the The Honolulu Advertiser.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Financing Photovoltaics for Your Faith Community
For many religious communities and other non-profits in Hawaii, there is a real desire and commitment to promote renewable energy. For homeowners and private businesses, the tax credits available from at the federal (30%) and state (35%) levels means that the purchase price can be significantly discounted, resulting in a payback period of 5-7 years. However, non-profits like religious communities don't pay taxes and thus can't take advantage of these discounts. How can these communities afford to purchase and install a PV system?
Well, there are options available for the creative and motivated religious community. Local solar companies are now offering power purchase agreements to several local faith communities. This is essentially a lease agreement in which the company installs a PV system for no upfront cost to the community, and the community in turn agrees to purchase the power generated at a discounted rate compared to the local electric utility. The California IPL has created a financing guide for religious communities that describes the PPA plus other ways to purchase and install a PV system. There are case studies in the guide, so you can learn from their experiences.
As always, feel free to contact HIPL with questions or to share your own experience with exploring or installing a renewable energy system.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Food and Energy-Making the Connection
This week's broadcast of the Hawaii Public Radio show Energy Futures is about the energy embedded in the food we eat in Hawaii. Since 90% of our food is imported, the thousands of food-miles embedded in what we buy and eat is one of the biggest uses of energy in the state. Promoting local and sustainable food production (as opposed to export-oriented commodity crops) is one of the biggest ways we can reduce our energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
HIPL has a documentary about how Cuba transformed its food production system after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dramatic reduction in food as well as fossil fuel imports. It's called The Power of Community. This film documents how Cuba became a model for locally grown, organic food, the proliferation of neighborhood farmer's markets, strengthened community relations, and improved personal health. If you're interested in a viewing and discussion of this 60-minute film, email us.
HIPL has a documentary about how Cuba transformed its food production system after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dramatic reduction in food as well as fossil fuel imports. It's called The Power of Community. This film documents how Cuba became a model for locally grown, organic food, the proliferation of neighborhood farmer's markets, strengthened community relations, and improved personal health. If you're interested in a viewing and discussion of this 60-minute film, email us.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
National Climate Seminars
The Bard Center for Environmental Policy is again hosting the National Climate Seminar series. This is a call-in seminar held the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month, 3:00 PM Eastern time. You can email questions in advance and ask questions during the seminar. Podcasts are also available.
The upcoming schedule is below:
01/27 - William Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies:
Ecology of a Hot Planet
02/03 - Joe Romm, Climate Progress:
The US Senate and Getting to 450
02/17 - Kristen Sheeran, E3 Network:
Equity and Global Warming
03/03 - Larry Schweiger, National Wildlife Federation:
Facing Mass Extinction
04/07 - The Yes Men:
Pranksterism for a Dead Serious Message
05/05 - Elysa Hammond, Clif Bar:
Transforming Corporations Around Climate
05/19 - Ross Gelbspan, Journalist:
Democracy and Climate Solutions
The upcoming schedule is below:
01/27 - William Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies:
Ecology of a Hot Planet
02/03 - Joe Romm, Climate Progress:
The US Senate and Getting to 450
02/17 - Kristen Sheeran, E3 Network:
Equity and Global Warming
03/03 - Larry Schweiger, National Wildlife Federation:
Facing Mass Extinction
04/07 - The Yes Men:
Pranksterism for a Dead Serious Message
05/05 - Elysa Hammond, Clif Bar:
Transforming Corporations Around Climate
05/19 - Ross Gelbspan, Journalist:
Democracy and Climate Solutions
Alternative Climate Change Bill
A new federal "climate change" bill has been submitted in the Senate. The new framework the CLEAR bill proposes, plus the "cap-n-dividend" approach, is much more aligned with the values of HIPL than the cap-n-trade bill passed by the House. A summary of the bill's pro's and con's is below. Read the full article and let us know what you think.
A New Outside-the-Beltway Climate Bill Deserves Support; Why Won't Enviros Get Behind It?
By David Morris
AlterNet
Posted on December 27, 2009
"Whatever President Obama promised in Copenhagen, Congress will have to deliver. The near-term prospects are dim. One key problem is that until recently, all climate bills have been assembled by hundreds of legislators trying to placate thousands of lobbyists. The results have been predictable. Virtually uninhibited carbon trading, a Wall Street delight, is at the core of most climate bills. The projected emission reductions are often more aspirational than real. Carbon allowances are dispensed freely and widely to buy off virtually every interest group.
"While Democratic Party leaders have been talking to lobbyists inside the Beltway, Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA and her staff have been looking for answers from activists and experts outside the Beltway. The result is the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act. Co-sponsored by Susan Collins, R-ME, this groundbreaking bill avoids the compromises and subterfuges of existing climate bills and embraces a new philosophical and strategic approach.
A New Outside-the-Beltway Climate Bill Deserves Support; Why Won't Enviros Get Behind It?
By David Morris
AlterNet
Posted on December 27, 2009
"Whatever President Obama promised in Copenhagen, Congress will have to deliver. The near-term prospects are dim. One key problem is that until recently, all climate bills have been assembled by hundreds of legislators trying to placate thousands of lobbyists. The results have been predictable. Virtually uninhibited carbon trading, a Wall Street delight, is at the core of most climate bills. The projected emission reductions are often more aspirational than real. Carbon allowances are dispensed freely and widely to buy off virtually every interest group.
"While Democratic Party leaders have been talking to lobbyists inside the Beltway, Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA and her staff have been looking for answers from activists and experts outside the Beltway. The result is the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act. Co-sponsored by Susan Collins, R-ME, this groundbreaking bill avoids the compromises and subterfuges of existing climate bills and embraces a new philosophical and strategic approach.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Hawaii Energy Efficiency Program
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported recently on the Hawaii Energy Efficiency Program, www.hawaiienergy.com. This program provides rebates to households for purchasing Energy Star-approved appliances.
Hawaii has also applied to participate in a federal rebate program, so there may be the possibility soon to benefit from both state and federal programs.
- The eligible appliances include:
- ceiling fans ($40)
- clothes washers ($50)
- dishwashers ($50)
- refrigerators ($50)
- window air conditioners ($75)
- ductless split air conditioners ($110)
Hawaii has also applied to participate in a federal rebate program, so there may be the possibility soon to benefit from both state and federal programs.
And don't forget about ShopIPL, an online energy efficiency store for faith communities and their members sponsored by Interfaith Power & Light. You can get significant discounts on energy efficiency products at this site.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Hawaii Energy Briefing, Jan 08
The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum is hosting a fast-paced energy briefing:
Friday, January 08
10:00-11:15 AM
State Capitol Auditorium (map)
Tentative Agenda:
10:00 AM – State of the Industry
Welcome - Jay Fidell
Opening Remarks - Rep. Hermina Morita
Report on Recent Developments - Ted Peck
Update from Three of our Energy Pacesetters
10:30 AM – Energy Initiatives for 2010
Presenting the Initiatives - Jay Fidell
Sustaining Energy Leadership - Carl Freedman
Maximizing Energy Efficiency - Darren Kimura
Advancing Renewable Energy - Kelly King & Mark Duda
Closing Remarks - Sen. Mike Gabbard
11:00 AM – Continue discussion with energy experts on
the Fourth Floor Concourse
Friday, January 08
10:00-11:15 AM
State Capitol Auditorium (map)
Tentative Agenda:
10:00 AM – State of the Industry
10:30 AM – Energy Initiatives for 2010
11:00 AM – Continue discussion with energy experts on
the Fourth Floor Concourse
Saturday, January 2, 2010
2010 A Great Year for Renewable Energy in Hawaii
The new year is shaping up to be a great one for renewable energy in Hawaii.
- First, Hawaii's "solar roof" law (Act 204) went into effect January 01. This law mandates that all new homes have a solar hot water system installed.
- Second, the La Ola 1.2 MegaWatt solar farm on Lanai is up and running (YouTube video). The electric utility estimates this will provide 30% of the island's peak load.
- First Wind is pursuing plans to expand wind energy generation on Maui and install new generating capacity on Molokai and Oahu.
- The final EIS for the Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning cooling system planned for downtown Honolulu has been published.
- HIPL member Temple Emanu-El is negotiating with a local company to install a photovoltaic electricity generating system on their property. The congregation is taking advantage of a purchase power agreement to reduce the cost and receive the tax credit benefits from the federal and state governments that are not directly available to non-profits.
- Finally, HIPL is negotiating with a local photovoltaic supplier and installer to provide discounts to HIPL member households for bundled purchases of household PV systems. Contact hipl@hipl.org or check back regularly for updates.
HIPL Receives Grants to Ramp Up Efforts
We are proud to announce that Hawaii Interfaith Power and Light has received two grants totaling $7500 from the Hawaii People's Fund ($2500) and the Hawaii Community Foundation ($5000) to assist us in recruiting new member faith communities and to carry out energy audits at member churches. Our goal for 2010 is to recruit 20 new member communities and carry out 10 energy audits. Look for updates about conducting an energy audit at your faith community's buildings or campus at our website, hipl.org. If you're interested in having your faith community become a member or want to learn more about HIPL, email us at: hipl@hipl.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)