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.

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.

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.

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.