To Till and to Tend

I heard Al Gore speak two weeks ago.  For someone in my position, this was a bit like seeing Britney Spears or Angelina Jolie.  Only I actually recognize Al Gore.  The presentation was truly inspiring.  In fact, I was moved to tears.  The former Vice President and Nobel Prize laureate challenged the United States to transition to 100 percent carbon-free electricity in 10 years.  And as I walked out of the auditorium, amid a mob of hundreds of other "climate fans," I believed it could be done.

As Gore noted (and the Daily Kos confirms), we have the resources and the technology.  Gore related scientific reports confirming "enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year."  Sure, we'll need to perfect transportation and storage - but the potential is there.  And with the right price on carbon, people will go the extra mile to work out the details.  In 1961 President John F. Kennedy challenged America to land a man on the moon within 10 years.  Eight years and two months later - on July 16, 1969 - the world listened as Apollo 11 lifted into the sky.  Thirty-eight years later (almost to the day), Al Gore established a goal of equal magnitude –  and I believe greater import.  For one could argue that the fate of the Earth rests on accepting his challenge.

And for at least ten minutes, I was confident that America would rise to the challenge.

But as the crowd dispersed along the streets of Washington, D.C., I felt my own confidence dispel.  Last December, Congress could not commit to providing 15% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.  How can that same Congress pass a law requiring 100% renewable electricity by 2018? As Hank Green of "EcoGeek" writes, this is a "football-sized" pill to swallow.  Will Congress actually prescribe such medicine for the American people?  And will the public actually take it? For although this prescription is in the long-term interests of our country, there will be many disenfranchised patients along the way.  As Green notes, the typical coal-fired power plant is designed to last 30-50 years.  Power companies will not dismantle a plant prematurely without compensation.  Sure, Gore acknowledged the need to "guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine" for all displaced coal miners, but that doesn't account for the disenfranchised factory workers – and the vested interests – in maintaining those factories.

Gore invoked the Apollo mission as an example of American determination and ambition.  Yet, in many ways, landing a man on the moon was an easier goal.  For one, as Climate Progress notes, "the countries [sic] leadership could make landing people on the moon a goal is because there wasn’t a more powerful lobby to make sure that it didn’t happen." And, as Cal Tech Chemistry Professor Nathan Lewis explains, "We already have electricity coming out of everybody's wall socket," whereas no one had ever been to the moon.  Converting the existing electricity system is not like NASA sending a man to the moon for the first time, "It’s like finding a new way to send a man to the moon when Southwest Airlines is already flying there every hour handing out peanuts."

I want to believe that Gore's vision is achievable.  After all, mankind has achieved the inconceivable in the past: Noah saved the world from destruction by constructing the ark.  What do you think? Can Gore's vision take flight – or is it simply an impossible dream?

Click here for a link to a video and text of Gore's speech.

Click here for more on Gore's inspirational campaign.

This Guest Blogger was Rabbi Warren Stone. He is known nationally for his leadership on religion and the environment. He is the founding and current chair of the Central Conference of American Rabbis' Committee on the Environment and serves on COEJL's board. Rabbi Stone has served as rabbi of Temple Emanuel in the Washington metropolitan area in Kensington, Maryland since 1988.

"In a world where matters of faith seem so often and so tragically to divide us, there is no issue which aligns us more deeply than our shared dependence upon and sacred responsibility to this tiny planet, enfolded within its fragile atmosphere, spinning in the vastness of time and space."

Kyoto and Bali agreements calling for worldwide reductions in CO₂emissions are a critical step in the world challenge to reduce our dependence on our diminishing world oil supplies. Yet according to current research, even if the nations of the world adopt the protocols, they will be insufficient to counter the growing impact of climate change in the current century. (Pew Foundation: Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort Against Climate Change).

It is time to start thinking outside of the diplomatic box.

With all due respect to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill in the U.S. Senate and the hoped-for policy change it would bring, it is time to challenge both our country and world populations to take steps beyond legislation and diplomacy to begin to transform our daily lives in ways that can impact this rise in CO₂.

I recently spoke at the British Embassy at a panel on Faith and Climate Change. It was part of a Washington, DC symposium on Climate Change and Security for all the US British consulates around the country. I applaud them for seeking leaders of faith communities to voice their concerns with diplomats. I served on a panel with a Christian Evangelical environmental leader, Rev. Richard Cizik and a young Muslim woman known as "Sanjana," who started a "DC Green Muslims blog." The British consulates sought voices from the faith community because they realize that the issue of climate change will demand a populist response beyond diplomacy. Faith leaders can and must inspire and mobilize their communities on this urgent issue.

People of faith on this planet number in the billions. Teaching people of faith basic environmental values and practices can have an immense impact. Perhaps we need an 11th Commandment of walking gently upon this earth of ours and being aware of our own carbon footprint as a religious mandate. Our religious traditions all share a spiritual mandate for caring for a Godly creation. Reaching religious leaders and their communities on this issue could not be more critical. Indeed, responding to climate change has become the most significant moral and spiritual issue facing humanity today. Our ancient religious traditions are concerned with protecting life and creation in the broadest sense. In a world where matters of faith seem so often and so tragically to divide us, there is no issue which aligns us more deeply than our shared dependence upon and sacred responsibility to this tiny planet, enfolded within its fragile atmosphere, spinning in the vastness of time and space.

I experienced this common faith when I served as a UN delegate representing many Jewish organizations at the Kyoto talks in 1997. At that time I spoke along with eight other religious leaders at the largest Buddhist Temple in Kyoto as a part of the conference. We concurred that people of diverse faith traditions have a spiritual and moral responsibility to act now.

As a religious leader involved in climate change issues now for many years I believe we need a gradual paradigm shift in our very way of life. In an article in The New York Times, "What's Your Consumption Factor?" January 2, 2008, Jared Diamond pointed out that world consumption is growing at an unsustainable rate in the face of a growing world population, particularly in India and China. China has a population of 1.3 billion and growing. Our forests and natural resources will not be able to sustain this demographic explosion. Perhaps we might be able to sustain 9 billion people but multiply that in our century and you can see we are facing a consumption doomsday.

The western ethic which continually encourages more growth, more cars, more computers and media tools is fostering a road leading to disaster. Not only are we using up the world's diminishing resources, but we are also contributing to climate change and threatening the world's species in a silent genocide. We are all imperiled by climate change -- a rise in water-borne illness, the devastation of coastal lands, frequently inhabited by some of the neediest populations --with world refugees with nowhere to go. We must act now. We must listen to Hillel, who chastised: "If not now, when?"

If diplomacy is not enough, what can we do and do now?

• Let us begin by greening our government and its diverse institutions. Let the Capitol, the White House and Congress become green examples to the nation. So too, our state and local governments need to become actively engaged in greening.

The President's "realistic" intermediate goal is only "realistic" because it requires virtually no action whatsoever. He hopes to halt US emissions – from the electric utility sector alone – by 2025. Yet, according to the Energy Blog, the Administration announced last week that US emissions had already fallen by 1% last year. Admittedly, this was likely a one-year blip, which can be attributed to high gas prices and mild temperatures, which reduced the need for heating and cooling – but it certainly underscores the inadequacy of the President's proposal.

In fact, the Administration proposal flies in the face of scientific reality. Last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared that emissions from industrialized nations must peak by 2015 – and decline by 20% by 2025. They won a Nobel Prize for this pronouncement. Yet, the Bush proposal does not require any reductions in that time frame. In fact, the "proposal" doesn't require reductions at all. It merely asks for voluntary commitments. The President insists this approach is necessary to avoid an unnecessary strain on the US economy. Yet, as Environmental Defense explains, simply delaying US reductions until 2014 (from 2012) would double necessary reductions (and associated costs) for the decade to come. And, as I wrote in my March 25^th post, the US Environmental Protection Agency has found that the key climate change legislation being considered by the Senate could be implemented without significant harm to the US economy.

[Visit The Jewish Week to read my op ed on the Bush climate initiative]

I'm in a very good mood right now. Those of you who regularly read my posts, may know that this is not always the case. But tonight was a very good night. For one, it was Dolly Parton night on American Idol. And I love Dolly Parton. (I've been to Dollywood three times.) But Dolly alone does not account for my delight. Tonight was also the inaugural night of the Al Gore "We" campaign. So, between renditions of Dolly Parton songs (and even a song by the diva herself), I viewed an extraordinary commercial about the need for US action on climate change.

Al Gore launched a three-year, commercial-scale climate change campaign tonight. The plan, which will feature television, print, radio and online advertising has been hailed by the Washington Post as "one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history." The goal is to engage 10-million climate activists. The civil rights movement boasted 5 million. Significantly, Gore has dedicated all of the proceeds from "An Inconvenient Truth" and his share of the Nobel Peace Prize (among other things) to help fund the $300-million, three-year campaign. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.

The debut commercial is powerful. It challenges: "We didn't wait for someone else to guarantee civil rights or put a man on the moon. And we can't wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis." As I wrote here and here, I couldn't agree more.

Gore's campaign couldn't come at a better time. The U.S. Senate is poised to consider federal climate change legislation in June. Yet, as I wrote in my post last week, far too many of our political leaders lack the courage to acknowledge the need for aggressive action. No one wants to be held responsible for voting for legislation that may increase electric prices in their jurisdiction or make it more expensive for their constituents to continue fueling their SUVs. And our Senators don't know that we're willing to accept these comparatively minor inconveniences. And, the sad truth is, many Americans aren't. Yet, Gore's campaign promises to speak to the masses – to persuade across political boundaries – about the importance of action. By reaching out to the captive viewers of prime time television, Gore will mobilize America – and, in turn, empower our leadership. Because the "inconvenient truth" is that we are all going to have to make sacrifices to solve climate change.

Please click here to join his campaign – and tell the world that We can solve the climate crisis.

Frankly, I don't think responding to climate change is what's going to drive our economy over a cliff. Doing nothing, however, just might. And on this point, EPA and I seem to be in agreement. About a week ago, EPA released it's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill – and the report confirmed what we knew all along: we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60% without harming the U.S. economy. As Senator Warner (the Bills Republican sponsor) says, "You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers.”

In fact, EPA forecast that U.S. GDP would grow by some 80 percent between 2010 and 2030 under the bill -- only 1 percent below what it would otherwise have been. In other words, national climate change legislation will only modestly slow a thriving economy.

And that's only half the story. The EPA analysis assumes the U.S. economy will continue to grow unabated absent climate change legislation. In other words, the baseline disregards the costs of climate change. It disregards the rising seas and dying forests and failing agriculture. It disregards the cost of responding to hurricanes and elevating houses. And yet, in one basic regard, EPA and I agree: responding to climate change will not drive the U.S. economy over a cliff.