A few days ago, I purchased a sandwich from a local deli. As an afterthought, I asked for an extra piece of cheese for the baby. Before I could take the slice, the counterperson smiled brightly and immediately placed the two-by-two inch square into a 16-ounce cup with a plastic lid. "Is that for here or to go?" she queried, stuffing a three-inch stack of napkins into a plastic bag. As she rang up my order, I surreptitiously returned the napkins to a receptacle on the counter. The cup, unfortunately, would have to be "recycled" into a blog post.

Last week, the G8 announced that they would (with, as the Daily Grist reports, a number of caveats) aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by fifty percent from current levels by mid-century. An ambitious goal, to be sure – yet, the scientific community has told us we need to reduce emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Whether the right number is fifty percent or eighty percent – the numbers are high enough to make your stomach sink and your head spin. What does it mean to cut emissions by more than half? And how can we possibly accomplish this? Certainly, how can we accomplish this when we live in a society that finds it necessary to cover a single slice of cheese with a cup and a lid?

The answer is we can't.

As long as we live in a society where a sandwich is accompanied by its weight in napkins; where a container of yogurt is served with a plastic knife, fork and spoon; and a single gallon of milk is placed inside two plastic grocery bags, we will not win the battle against climate change. Solving the climate crisis is going to require a fundamental change in our national consciousness. We must learn to rethink consumption and redefine our "needs." And we cannot simply defer to the government to make these changes.

Sometimes I get overwhelmed when I think of the enormity of our needed reductions. But the Styrofoam cup is half full: with so much excess, the initial cuts will be easy. In fact, a report released earlier this month by Environment America announced that simple building efficiency measures could reduce US energy consumption by 11%. A December 2007 report by McKinsey and Company identified more than 250 existing technologies and strategies that could reduce US emissions by 28% in 2030. And imagine how we can each augment these numbers with countless changes in our own lives – from taking our own grocery bags to the market to riding public transportation to work.

Indeed, America will come a long way toward addressing the climate crisis when cashiers begin to serve fries without a side of plastic. And tomorrow when I take my kids for icecream, I'll be sure to ask for it in a cone – hold the cup and spoon.

Chicken soup on the holidays, hot pastrami on rye for lunch with my mother, briskets and chickens on Shabbat - these are the foods I grew up with. For some, these foods complicate Jewish belief. Rabbi David Rosen states in the narrow-minded vegetarian documentary A Sacred Duty, “So I, simply put, am a vegetarian because I am a religious Jew.” This and similar views are supported by one of the principles of Judaism: Tsa’ar Ba’alei Chayim, compassion for all life. However, after the Flood, God tells Noah and his family, “Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all of these. You must not, however, eat flesh with its life blood in it.” (Gen 9:3-4). No clear answers can be made from all these mixed messages. Does practicing Judaism include being a vegetarian like Rabbi Rosen promotes, or can we as a people remain omnivores consuming meat in a compassionate, responsible, sustainable manner?
                                                                                  

            Though content with my findings, the only clear conclusion that I have formed so far, is to choose your nourishment responsibly, and in manner that best suits your interpretations of Jewish teachings as well as environmental concerns. As a Jewish omnivore myself, I cannot easily encourage or even suggest a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, but I do encourage eating meat moderately and most importantly, sensibly. For many this once came in the form of the Laws of Kashrut. However, after the devastating unraveling of the Kosher meat industry, through Agriprocessors in Iowa, many have taken to Hechsher Tzedek, a movement that supports a just meat industry – including the proper treatment of animals and workers. Still, I think about my choices - even replacing one meat meal a week (think Shabbat) with a vegetarian one could conserve more than 4,000 gallons of water (more than an entire year’s worth of showering)!

67% of Americans who say they care about the environment do so because it’s “God’s creation.”

Almost 50% of Sierra Club members go to a house of worship at least once a month.

Whoa.

I hope that it’s no surprise to any readers that there is a strong faith-based environmental movement. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment – made up of Jews (COEJL), Catholics, Protestants (NCC Eco-Justice) and Evangelicals (Evangelical Environmental Network) – has been around for over 15 years. Interfaith Power and Light (IPL) is an environmental initiative with over 25 state chapters. To these organizations and many of their affiliated houses of worship, connection between Earth stewardship and faith is clear.

Sierra Club has recently noticed this powerful movement and published a report: Faith in Action: Communities of Faith Bring Hope for the Planet, which includes the stats mentioned above. Beyond an introduction which delves into the power of faith-based action, it shares stories of 52 communities of faith – one for each state, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico – where their faith propelled them to critical ecological and sustainable action. As the report notes, the environmental movement has been secular, shying away from “values” and, dare I say it, “creation.” Never before has a study like this been done. But the environmental (and political) significance is enormous!

Though there is a clear danger in grafting “God” with “politics,” (I hope I don’t need to explain) even Sierra Club can’t ignore its wonders. 86% of the world’s population affiliates with a religion. The report notes that all the religious environmental initiatives “coalesce around a few key broadly shaped principles: stewardship, justice and concern for ‘the poor,’ and concern for one’s neighbor and future generations.” Agreement on these principles may not bring world peace. Frankly, slight variations of interpretation continue to yield devastating wars.

If we can harness the energy of religious faiths to the issues of earth stewardship, then we might just have a chance.

    I don’t know about you, but when I hear the word “Arctic”, the images widely circulating in the media (i.e. melting glacial ice caps and “cuddly” [now classified as threatened] polar bears desperately searching for stable ice floes), flash through my mind. However, after reading Silent Snow: The Slow Poisoning of the Arctic by Marla Cone (2005), I now think to also address the humans living in the arctic region and how they are affected by their changing environment.

    The Inuit, who inhabit various parts of the Arctic including Greenland, Canada, and Siberia, are a people whose culture and way of life are and have been shaped by the Arctic's habitat for thousands of years. Especially unique to them is their diet of game - such as seal meat and whale blubber - rich in protein and fat, which enable the Inuit to survive the harsh conditions of their environment and prevent certain diseases of malnutrition like scurvy. If you don’t believe me, take a good look at the history of American and European polar exploration, for it will tell you of travelers from “modernized” nations who had to adopt such a diet if they wanted even a chance at survival in the arctic regions. Yet, these sources of food, which have always sustained the Inuit, today, are becoming widely seen as detrimental to their health.

        Cone's book, reminiscent of Rachel Carson's groundbreaking Silent Spring (1962), goes beyond popular media, uncovering the presence of the world's chemical residue in the region's waters, ice, and complex food chain. Even after global initiatives to reduce production of DDT, PCBs, and mercury, they haven’t disappeared. Not only do they remain in the world at large, they disproportionately settle in the Arctic. Through evaporation and condensation, they are carried north by the Earth’s water and air systems. Unfortunately, the story of these chemicals’ travels does not end there. Through bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of these toxins from the environment, they build up in succession of arctic species along the food chain, so that the Inuit (the highest on the chain) today exceed the concentration of PCB's, mercury, and other chemicals considered safe under international health guidelines. Consequences are slowly being seen as many Inuit children suffer from high rates of infectious diseases like ear infections (leading to hearing loss) and complications with brain development.

In 2002, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) stated that the contamination raises "fundamental questions of cultural survival, for it threatens to drive a wedge of fear between people and the land that sustains them." While many of us today in other settings can and do change our diet because of health concerns, the Inuit cannot. A few weeks ago, with the salmonella outbreak in tomatoes, did we not have the option of buying different types of tomatoes or of simply abstaining from them altogether? The point is, we did not have to radically change our eating habits and if we were to, would not have to uproot our lives to do so.

We now need to be reminded of what it means to be so dependent on our environment and the atrocity when realizing that formerly symbiotic relationship may need to be reconsidered. Yet again, maybe, as Jews who draw an identity from the Land of Israel and reject the notion of completely abandoning it for security, we are more understanding than we think. What we need to do then is to connect our personal experiences to our neighbors’ up north and support the Inuit in maintaining their livelihoods. We can start by carefully disposing our waste, continuing the fight for cleaner energy, and as always, educate ourselves with the latest news.

Although many of us are already in the midst of our summers and are both mentally and physically removed from the ice, we should note that we are still in an International Polar Year, ending in March 2009. In commemoration of this year, Silent Snow has been made into a feature-length documentary (watch the trailer!) to be shown at the end of the IPY.

As you can see, information regarding toxins and the Inuit has been around for some time. Just because we can’t see it, because it isn’t melting away or isn’t a cute, furry creature, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Let us take off the Arctic “goggles” we’ve allowed the media to let us wear, in order to see the bigger picture at hand.

For more, read a interesting interview with Jim Clark, former Alaskan King crab fisherman and lover of Inuit art and culture.

As an undergrad, my professors explained that climate change would never be solved. Politicians, after all, will only seek solutions for problems that they can tackle in four-year cycles. And people will only seek solutions for problems they can see. But carbon emissions are invisible and global warming would not affect us for generations. Or so we thought.

But now, the effects of climate change are felt on a daily basis. Global temperatures have increased by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. This spring, an ice sheet the size of Manhattan crashed into the Arctic sea. The recent listing of the polar bear as a threatened species explicitly acknowledged the role of climate change in their decline. The genocide in Darfur is widely attributed to resource scarcity caused by climate change. In short, climate change is no longer a problem we can shut our eyes to.

Unfortunately, to many people, climate change remains invisible. As reported in Reuters, Tesco, the world's third-largest food retailer, recently announced a plan to end that. It will begin placing carbon labels on 20 products to help consumers see the greenhouse gas emissions per serving of certain items including potatoes, orange juice, cleansers and light bulbs. John Tierney, likewise imagines that consumers would change their behavior if consumers could only visualize their emissions. In a recent article in the New York Times, Tierney, highlights a number of gadgets that would help consumers visualize their emissions. One gadget, called "the Wattson" changes colors based on electricity consumption. Tierney imagines a world where people would wear electronic jewelry to report their carbon use. These flashing mood rings and pendants would immediately allow onlookers to assess the carbon habits of their peers. And, Tierney speculates, "If the delegates to future conferences on climate change are expected to wear illuminated symbols of their energy consumption, they won't be visiting any more spots like Bali."

Tierney isn't alone in trying to figure out ways to make carbon tangible. A team of four teens in England recently won a competition for their proposed invention: the "Enuffometer." The gadget would provide minute-by-minute monitoring of energy use, with results that could be text messaged to the owner's mobile phone – and remotely disconnect wasteful appliances. As the insightful youthful inventors explain, the Enuffometer helps people visualize their emissions since "people find it much easier to fight something they can see." Well put.

Carbon mood rings and the Enuffometer will likely be among the tools of the future to help us visualize our carbon emissions. But other gadgets already exist. The "Kill a Watt" helps users determine how energy is being used around the house – so that they can cut back on wasteful devices. [You can purchase a Kill a Watt (and other energy-saving gadgets) at www.coejl.earthaidkits.com.]

Those of you who read my posts know that, for me, climate change is anything but an invisible problem. To the contrary, I fear its effects are far too visible. But even I could benefit from a flashing reminder when my energy use is excessive. After all, we all need someone to remind us when we've used "Enuff."

[For more on ways that already exist to visualize the effects of climate change, read Liore's May 28 post, "Have to See it to Believe it?"]

-----------

I'd love your thoughts on other ways we could send consumers the right signals about energy use.

I wish that I were creative enough to have created this term on my own, but alas, I must be honest, it was King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan. In catching up on my National Geographic magazines, I read an article entitled “Bhutan’s Enlightened Experiment,” and I think I had a little bit of enlightenment myself.

In the 1960’s, Bhutan began to open its borders and peered into the wonders and challenges of modernity and globalization. Proud of their Buddhist culture and simple ways, the Bhutanese sought an entry into modernity that included good health, education and infrastructure, while maintaining the beauty and serenity of the land. To accomplish this, the King stepped away from the normal quantifier of prosperity, net dollars earned called Gross National Product.

Instead, he chose to measure his country’s success by the four pillars Gross National Happiness: (1) sustainable development (2) environmental protection (3) cultural preservation and (4) good governance. Consequently, since 1982, Bhutan has reduced infant mortality rate by 75%, increased literacy rate by 600% and life expectancy by 23 years. Meanwhile, it appears that nothing has been lost: most of Bhutan remains virgin forest and Bhutanese culture, tradition and identity remain strong. Sustainable emersion, growth and perspective in its truest form.

While there is much to learn in the brilliance of others, we can also learn from that which already rolls off our tongues.

Jewish tradition doesn’t have the clarity of the four pillars of GNH, but we do have Torah. As we sing each time we read from the Torah as a community: “Eitz chayim he lamachazikim bah, vetomcheha me'ushar. Deracheha darchey noam, vechol netivoteha shalom.” It is a Tree of Life to them who hold fast to it, and all who embrace it will be enriched. Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths lead to peace.
- Proverbs 3:17-18