Climate Change and Island Fever

Thanks to Chuck Burrows for sharing a link to an article in Grist magazine about the high carbon cost of flying (link). In sheer CO2 emissions, one flight mile emits just under 1 pound of CO2. A vehicle that averages 22 MPG would emit CO2 at the same rate. The global warming effect of airplane emissions, however, may be 2-5 times higher than from a car.
For those traveling cross-country, taking a train or even driving the family sedan may seem like the better alternative. Those of us in Hawaii have little choice but to fly; and going anywhere means 2500+ flight miles.
I do my best to keep my carbon footprint low. My wife and I average 3000 miles/yr driving. We don't use the window-unit A/C in our condo. We eat a lot of fresh produce, have CFLs throughout the house, and put our computer and entertainment electronics on power strips that are turned off when we're not using them. Even our 3-yr-old turns off our 16-yr-old TV by switching off the power strip. Despite that, we average about 1 trip/yr to the mainland US to visit family, most of whom are on the East Coast. I make at least one additional trip overseas or to the US mainland for work. While that helps with our frequent flier perks, it doesn't help our carbon footprint. In fact, more than half our footprint is due to flying. My guess is a lot of Hawaii residents are in the same situation.
What are we to do: suffer through island fever and "visit" family and colleagues exclusively on Skype? Even if we decided to do that, living in Hawaii is from a GHG emissions standpoint an attractive nuisance; we've had more visitors here than any place we lived on the mainland US.
It's not a fair choice, really. However, it does highlight the kinds of big choices we make about not just how we live our lives but where. Perhaps the environmental catch-phrase of the 21st century should be "Think global (warming), live local." Investing our lives in our local communities enriches us in ways that world-hopping simply cannot. Staying connected to family, friends, and the world around us is important, but the everyday enounters and daily interactions are what mattter the most to our well-being. Fortunately, telecommunications advances have rapidly made keeping in touch remotely much easier and richer. Face-to-face interactions are still invaluable and necessary in life and work, but if we spent a bit more time building community locally, we would probably find less desire to hop on a plane to Vegas or San Francisco to get away from it all. 

Human Rights and Climate Change Policy

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

Making Climate Change THE Political Issue

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

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

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

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

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

Peak Oil is the Least of our Worries

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

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

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

The Bogeyman of Higher Prices

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


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


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


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

Conservative's Take On Climate Change

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


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

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

Climate Change is Risky for Insurance Companies

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

Public Voice: Some Sociological Explanations for Climate Change Denial

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

Frakking Up the Environment

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


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


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

Climate Change Isn't the "Issue"

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

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

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

Why Climate Change "Alternatives" Aren't

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping it "cool" in your congregation

On 17 September 2011, HIPL is hosting a train-the-trainers event called "Cool Congregations". You can learn more at the HIPL CC webpage, including instructions on how to register. The event will be held at Central Union church in Honolulu. This event will kick off a year-long effort by faith communities in Hawaii to reduce the energy use and carbon footprint of congregants. The "biggest losers" so to speak will win local prizes and be eligible to compete in the national Cool Congregations contest.
Although there's nothing groundbreaking about the nuts and bolts of energy conservation, we have adapted national materials to fit the Hawaii context. The program provides resources, support, and encouragement to get people in the habit of conserving energy. More importantly, it reinforces the deep and practical connections between the principles of our faith traditions and our attitudes and behaviors toward climate change and energy use. It's all about inspiration, education, dedication, and implementation!
Don't live on Oahu? Don't worry! The 17 September event just the first of several will hold. We are planning 4 additional training events in the months that follow on several of the neighbor islands. Keep in touch to find out when and where, or contact us to suggest a time and/or place for a training event.

The Moral Degradation of Fossil Fuel Dependency

The trial and recent sentencing of an environmental activist in Salt Lake City who protested the selling of oil and gas leases on public lands illustrates an important but largely overlooked moral dimension of an energy economy based on fossil fuels. In this case, the government prosecuted an environmental activist bid on federal oil and gas leases during an auction in 2008. Tim DeChristopher, known as "Bidder 70", bid on leases with no intention to drill in order to disrupt the auction and bring attention to the Bush administration's fast-tracking of lease auctions during the waning days of his administration.

His creative act of civil disobedience was not unprecedented and thus not unexpected by the government. Regulations related to the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (FOOLGRA) (Cornell Law) requires holder of energy leases to develop the land for energy development, essentially preventing conservation groups from bidding on and obtaining leases. They also require bidders to have the financial means of paying for the lease. Bidder 70 "won" the auction but was charged, tried, and convicted of interfering with and making false statements at a federal auction (Huffington Post) both for not having the funds to pay for the lease and not intending to actually drill for oil and gas. He was recently sentenced to 2 years in a federal prison, an unprecedented punishment for an act of civil disobedience. DeChristopher maintained that the auctions were illegal attempts to fast-track oil and gas development, and, in fact, he was right: once the Obama administration took office and reviewed the leases, they found them to be illegitimate and dismissed them (MSNBC). However, that had no bearing on DeChristopher's prosecution. The judge also did not allow him make the argument that there are at least 25 other cases of winning bidders who found out they did not have the financial means to pay for the lease and walked away without prosecution (Time).

While DeChristopher had a trial by a jury of his peers, the way in which this act was prosecuted and the very regulations and punishments underlying it reveal a deeper moral degradation that we have institutionalized in an economy that is dependent upon fossil fuels. And that's what is important for people of faith to consider. In my opinion, the intent of the regulations from FOOLGRA that were selectively used to prosecute DeChristopher is to outlaw environmentalists from getting between an addict and his dealer. Civil disobedience is used all the time to disrupt the smooth operations of public and private activities, but violators are never accused of fraud or misrepresentation; indeed, DeChristopher claims he clearly stated his intentions prior to the start of the auction (bidder70.org). Rather, these regulations were used to express the government's increasing frustration, denial, and complicity in a harmful, unsustainable energy system. The response was not to acknowledge the inherent problems and take corrective action but rather to lash out at protestors who would dare to speak truth to power. There are clear parallels with global trade negotiations where meeting sites are more and more cordoned off like security compounds and protestors are removed so far away as to have no visibility for the negotiating representatives.

While these actions are far removed from the atrocities committed by isolated autocratic rulers in the Middle East, they represent the same type of moral degradation. In the case of the Middle East, rulers depend upon largely unjust and immoral political systems; in the US, we are dependent upon a harmful and unjust fossil fuel energy system. When the injustice and harm of these systems is brought to light, a moral (and religiously grounded) response would be to acknowledge the problems, ask for forgiveness, and work for restorative justice grounded in the development of a morally defensible alternative. Continuing to defend and support an unjust system requires governments to deny the problems and increasingly engage in immoral acts to suppress or silence the voices of the harmed and those demanding justice. Climate deniers, as a former post explained, aren't really anti-science; they're mainly in denial about the immorality of a fossil fuel-based energy system. To accept the problems is to affirm the harm they have caused and accept the moral responsibility to take action. The governmental dissonance of prosecuting DeChristopher for bidding on leases that were later declared illegitimate demonstrates the struggle we face in trying to "balance" our desire to protect the environment while continuing to depend upon an unjust energy system. A morally defensible response would be to fundamentally change the laws and regulations so that we move as quickly as possible to a renewable energy system that ensures justice and protection of the environment and human health.

The point, to make a long story short, is that clinging to a harmful and unjust energy system is inherently degrading of our own moral character. The corrupting nature of unjust and harmful systems is clear in the stories of the Hebrew prophets (Old Testament books) when rulers who most benefited lashed out at the prophets who spoke out against the harm and injustice. The call to personal repentance that is so prevalent in modern evangelical religious movements (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise) may seem to ignore social or institutional immorality, but the two are intertwined. The fruits of personal salvation should be morally defensible actions and decisions, but such a redeemed life cannot be fully lived while clinging to a morally indefensible support system. That is why prophets have targeted religious and political rulers for their most stinging criticisms: they most benefit from unjust systems, they have the power to change or perpetuate them, and thus their moral character is most connected to their decisions and actions in regard to their defense or transformations. The Bidder 70 case illustrates the morally corrupting and degrading character of our fossil fuel-based energy system and the need for Interfaith Power and Light and its supporters to emphasize this point in their role as prophetic voice for a just and sustainable energy future.

Facts, Theories, and Stories About Climate Change

Al Gore wrote a recent essay for Rolling Stone magazine entitled "Climate of Denial" in which he analyzes the political and social resistance to accepting the theories and models of human-caused climate change. He quotes a philosopher who commented on the rise of propaganda in politics after World War II, that, "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false." Unfortunately, he was wrong.

There is no "conversion" taking place for climate deniers, rather there is a shift in emphasis from the factual basis of claims of climate change to the personal, social, and political context and implications of climate change. Any honest philosopher will tell you that "truth" is not the same thing as "fact" or "observation". The truth of climate change is not a set of observations, organizing theories, and predictive models. Rather, the truth is an interdependent web of scientific understanding, personal reflection and realization, and values-laden discussion and decision-making in the social and political arenas. That is why the truth, and not the facts or the theory alone, can set us free. Truth in this sense is a story of meaning and value and a call to personal and collective action; in other words, it is a myth in its most positive and meaningful sense.

So why do climate deniers challenge the science, at least the theories and predictions? Because they (sub)consciously realize that to accept the scientific story of climate change is to accept the foundation of the climate crisis as a powerful truth that has fundamental moral and ethical implications, as Al Gore has been prophesying for some time. It is because deep down, they hold the same values and beliefs as those who accept the truth of climate change. And that is a source of profound hope (as well as continuing frustration). Slavery; suppression of women's rights; disregard for the environment; and denying civil rights for people of all races, religions, and creeds continued long after the reality of the "facts" were widely known because many people resisted the myth of injustice and the truths they told. The ones we should really fear are those who accept the facts of climate change but don't see it as a call to action. Their hearts have been hardened against the realities of the climate crisis.

So what are we to do? We should engage with the climate deniers or skeptics on the full truth of the climate crisis. We should highlight the common ground—values, interests, faiths, traditions—that we share in common. The deniers need help coming to grips with the moral of the climate crisis story, not the science. Interfaith Power and Light is uniquely positioned to do this, and books such as Moral Ground provide inspirational essays and stories from multiple perspectives and faiths to help us. We need stories to tell the truth in a way that highlights the centrality of morals and ethics, showing how we all share in the responsibility for what has happened and to respond appropriately.

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