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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why climate change is THE environmental issue for faith communities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Policies.

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

(b) Economic and Cost Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Responsibility for Damages

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

III-Conclusion

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

By:

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

Christian Response to Senate Inaction

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

Jesus and the Climate Bill

distributed 7/30/10 - ©2010

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

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

So what do we do now?

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

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


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

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

+ + + + +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + + + +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + + + +

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

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

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

Shalom!

Peter Sawtell
Executive Director
Eco-Justice Ministries

The Senate's Moral Responsibility on Climage Change

from the national Interfaith Power and Light website...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.