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.