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.