To Till and to Tend

Describing old-fashioned normal utensils – silverware, plates, glasses – as “reusables” does tell us something about our material culture.  Last week I wrote about my minyan’s low-tech efforts to be more sustainable, buying kiddush glasses and plates and creating a volunteer rotation for washing them.  Nevei Kodesh in Boulder, Colorado, shares that they purchased metal “sauce cups” which are very distinctive, non-breakable, and easy to clean.  They cost less than $1 a cup in bulk. 
There is a third way between “washables” and disposables, and that’s compostables, a product with expanding choices, some of which are pictured.  They are more expensive that petroleum based plastics, but are made from vegetable products, so they decompose.  Fortunately they don’t decompose when you use them; they take a month or so to accomplish this task.  Their first major advantage over conventional plastic is that they are manufactured from a renewable source.  Their second advantage is that they decompose, but of course this advantage is only achieved if a community actually composts.  Throwing them in the garbage, as a friend reported was the norm in an eco-concerned, non-composting institution where she works, only addresses half of the environmental equation.  Throwing compostables in a landfill has no environmental virtue, since they won’t break down.
If there’s no on-site composting, one solution is to collect the compostables and find a volunteer who does compost and is willing to take them.  (Of course starting a composting system at the synagogue is an even better idea.)
While this is all important, both actually and symbolically, we are missing the forest for the trees here.  One commenter points out that the carbon footprint of driving to shul is bigger than the kiddush cup.  So the real campaign is to encourage folks to walk, carpool, or take public transit to synagogue.  Here are the numbers provided by our commenter who didn’t include a name, unfortunately:

The analysis below was done for Congregation Tifereth Israel . We have 320 member units, a 57,000 sqft 60 year old building. While the numbers are specific to us, the should hold in general for other congregations. [it looks like there are 0 added heating costs in winter; I would question that, but that's a minor point]

I have made some rough estimates on the energy cost of a typical Shabbat, and translated them into pounds of carbon dioxide (lbs CO2).

Extra building heating costs winter — minimal
Summer cooling for the sanctuary 600 lbs CO2

6 lbs of plastic plates and utensils. — 30 lbs CO2
1 pound of unrecycled aluminum pans 25 lbs CO2

A typical car emits about 1lb CO2 per mile (Prius owners stop smirking ).
I estimate that on each Shabbat about 70 cars travel 14 round-trip miles to take us to the service. -1000 lbs CO2

Summary. We can recycle the aluminum pans, wash dishes instead of using disposables — but these are are semi-symbolic. If we want to do something that counts, carpool, walk or bicycle to Shabbat service. Maybe we can teledaven?

So let’s brainstorm about the transport of the dovveners.  Orthodox congregations win the prize here, big time, for zero to very light Kehillah-wide carbon foot prints on shabbos.  In the liberal world, what can we do to promote less driving, especially in the face of inaccessible suburban synagogue locations ?  I have only heard of one synagogue policy which addresses this, at Adat Shalom in Rockville, MD.  They are short on parking, so hybrids get parking spot preference.  Please share any ideas or policies!

Months ago, I met with my counterpart from another faith group. I had been working at COEJL for about a week. “Be careful not to get burned out,” she cautioned. “This is a marathon, not a sprint.” Little did she know, the Jewish people are well equipped for such journeys. After all, we wandered for forty years in the desert before arriving in Israel.

My colleague was right, however, the path to national climate change legislation is a long one. This might not be as obvious to those outside the Beltway. After all, earlier this evening, the Senate opened debate on national climate change legislation. And shouldn’t such debate culminate with another vote to pass the bill itself? Alas, it isn’t so simple. Senator Boxer has threatened to pull the bill if someone introduces a “poison pill” on the Senate floor. Senator Inhofe would undoubtedly filibuster, preventing a final vote if the bill remained on the floor long enough to allow it. And, of course, even if the Senate were to vote on the bill, it would be an uphill climb to garner enough support for it to move forward. And, if by some miracle, there is sufficient support in the Senate, the House would need to start the process all over again. And assuming the House actually voted on a bill, the President would still have to approve it. Yet, the President has already told us that he doesn’t plan to do anything on climate change until 2025.

So, why bother? Why have I been sending out action alerts and letters to Congress? Why have I been calling constituents and meeting with senators and their staff? Indeed, most of us who work on these issues have been in “crisis mode” for the last few weeks – joining daily conference calls to report on the latest “intelligence from the field” as though we’re preparing for battle.

Because that is exactly what we’re doing. This week’s vote and debate is a battle in the midst of a very long war. From the start, people have questioned whether we should be fighting this battle at all. After all, does it make sense to invest so much energy in something that is unlikely to be signed into law?

Clearly, I think it does. And I think you should fight for it, too. Because regardless of whether we pass a climate law this year, simply forcing a national discussion about climate change is a victory. That discussion educates those on Capitol Hill – and each of us – about the resources at stake. Each newspaper article and radio story raises the profile of this issue. And in the next Administration, when the debate begins again, we’ll all be a little wiser. We will no longer have to convince the public that climate change is real. We will no longer have to convince our leaders that we can address the problem without derailing the US economy. Instead, we can have a more informed discussion about the best ways to accomplish this.

The Jewish people have a long tradition of enduring hardship to reach our goals. I only hope that – unlike our ancestors in the desert – we actually get to enter the “Promised Land” – a land where all of creation is protected from the threats of climate change.

Click here to urge your Senator to support The America’s Climate Security Act (S 3036).