To Till and to Tend

You probably don’t read much about the Maldives- a small island nation in the Pacific with less than 500,000 inhabitants- unless, that is, you follow environmental news outlets like ClimateWire. Pacific island nations like the Maldives, along with (once) ice-covered landmasses like Greenland, have become the ‘canaries in the coal mine’ for global climate change. The Maldives will be one of the first places in the world drastically affected by climate change, as the entire nation lies just above sea level and its economy is driven largely by climate-sensitive activities like fishing and tourism. That’s why the nation’s government is developing a plan to evacuate the entire country to new homes if we don’t change our climate course in the very near future.

For the last decade, the United States has failed to take the lead in tackling climate change, despite the fact that we are the second-largest carbon emitter in the world (after China, though we still are #1 in per capita emissions by a long shot). While vulnerable developing nations have done the least to cause global climate change, they will be the first to suffer its effects, and have the fewest resources to adapt.

Still, the Maldives is ready to be part of the solution, recently announcing plans to become the first carbon neutral nation in the world. Countries from the Maldives to Mexico, and even China, are drafting plans to slash their carbon footprints, leaping ahead of the U.S. on this issue. As Americans of faith who believe in stewardship and sustainability, we have long understood that this is unacceptable.

Since we have failed on the mitigation side, developed nations must now take responsibility by funding adaptation programs to help people around the world change their lifestyles in response to the inevitable effects of climate change. In addition to being the right thing to do, funding adaptation is in our national interest; the UN IPCC predicts that the world may see as many as 150 million ‘climate refugees’ by 2050 if we don’t act now. This sort of mass migration would deeply destabilize the world economy and upset social dynamics in every nation around the globe. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. and other developed nations have as yet failed to live up to our minimal promises on international adaptation. We cannot wait to act, and we cannot hope to enact an international treaty without a strong American commitment to both mitigate our climate change impact and help the world adapt to its effects. And without an international treaty, even the best of U.S. efforts will do little to avoid the worst impacts of climate change- the time has come for us to step up our commitment and once more be the global leader in addressing this global problem. The Maldives, and the rest of the world, are waiting.

Rachel is an Eisendrath Legislative Assistant working on environment and energy issues at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, DC. She will be a regular guest blogger on To Till and To Tend this year, posting entries every other Thursday (or in some cases, Wednesday!). This, and all of Rachel’s entries, can also be found on the Religious Action Center blog.

Sometimes in Kansas it feels that we are far removed from the decisions being made on the major issues of the day. But right now we are on the frontlines of the struggle to move America away from polluting energy generation technologies toward a more green and sustainable future.

Some background: last year the head of the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE), Rod Bremby, overturned plans to build two massive coal burning plants in Western Kansas (known as Holcomb), on the grounds of their impact on global warming. Sunflower Energy, which had proposed the plant, sued in state court, but the courts have supported Demby’s authority to take the action. At the same time, the state is politically quite conservative, and majorities in both houses of the Kansas legislature passed laws a) to strip Bremby of his authority to veto the plants, and b) to specifically approve building them. Three times such laws were passed; three times they were vetoed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius; and three times the Republicans failed to muster enough votes to overturn the veto.

But the issue dominated business for the whole of 2008, as very little else could get done, least of all any kind of comprehensive energy policy. For instance, net metering, by which it is possible to give the excess energy one generates oneself, through solar cells or wind power, back to the utility, has not been approved in Kansas; approval of it last year was included as a “sweetener” in the Holcomb plant bill, and therefore was vetoed as well.

So now here it is 2009, and climate activists have been waiting to see how this issue will be developed this year. Now we know:

The fight over building two coal-burning electric power plants in southwestern Kansas starts again today with a public hearing on House Bill 2182 in the House Energy and Utilities Committee.

The bill makes no mention of the proposal to build two 700-megawatt coal-fired plants near Holcomb in southwestern Kansas.

But it limits the authority of Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby in a way that will require him to approve permits for the plants, according to opponents of the project.

If the KDHE secretary is stripped of his decision-making powers, then there would be no need to have a second bill specifically to support the plants. Of course, this bill is likely to be vetoed by Gov. Sebelius as well (and if she goes to HHS, by her Lt. Gov., Mark Parkinson).

There are two ironies in this whole thing. First, it’s quite clear that the “regulatory uncertainty” that Chamber of Commerce types complain about is actually coming, not from Topeka, but from Washington:

With concerns over climate change intensifying, electricity generation from coal, once reliably cheap, looks increasingly expensive in the face of the all-but-certain prospect of regulations that would impose significant costs on companies that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The article also points out that, far from Kansas being unique in this, in fact

In the last two-and-a-half years, plans for 83 plants in the United States have either been voluntarily withdrawn or denied permits by state regulators.

The other irony is that Kansas is uniquely qualified to be a trailblazer in the area of alternative fuels, particularly wind – as you know if you’ve ever been here. Gov. Sebelius calls the state the “Saudi Arabia of wind power.” If only the state legislators and industry leaders would turn their field of vision from the past to the future, that is.

I am on the steering committee of Kansas Interfaith Power & Light, the local outpost of a national organization that engages diverse faith communities in the issue of environmental stewardship. We do this mostly on the retail level, by going from congregation to congregation to encourage them to green their facilities and to teach the religious imperative to care for the earth through the fight against climate change.

But we also realize that one Holcomb plant (two, actually) would do more damage to the environment than 1,000 churches caulking their windows could fix. That’s why we’ve turned our attention to the legislative process, to encourage our state officials to support conservation, energy efficiency, and green energy options rather than the continued reliance on the outmoded energy-generating technologies of the past.

After all, we are convinced, it’s the godly thing to do. 

        I have just returned from a month long study abroad in Costa Rica.  (Great tidbit: Costa Rica is the size of West Virginia but has 4% of the world’s biodiversity, the same amount as the entire United States). Besides being one of the most memorable experiences, I learned more than I have in the past two and a half years at college. 

 

      One of the classes was Debates in Conservation of Tropical Biodiversity. We read various controversial articles on such topics as ecosystem degradation, resource scarcity, over population, and loss of biodiversity. These articles were from prestigious sources and well known authors such as Lester Brown and Jeffery Sachs, as well as from skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg. One concept that struck my interest was ecologic economics – how do you put a price on biodiversity?

 

      Ecosystems provide $33 trillion/ year in services such as preventing soil erosion, carbon sequestration, providing materials and resources, maintaining water sources, and basically everything else that the entire global population relies on every single day. However, ecosystem services and their degradation are not factored into the cost of our goods and services in the standard economy. We presume that these ecosystem goods and services should be free because they are natural. As long as there is water in our faucet, and paper plates on our tables, most people will never understand the true value and price of these scarce resources. Maybe, if water was more expensive, we would take shorter showers. Maybe if paper wasn’t so cheap, people would use both sides.

 

      I found this great quote from the Organization of Tropical Studies in La Selva, Costa Rica, “Only when the last tree has died & the last river has been poisoned & the last fish has been caught will we realize that WE CANNOT EAT MONEY.”

Last week Senator Barbara Boxer released her principles for global warming legislation, a set of ideals she hopes will guide Congress as it crafts climate legislation this year. The principles are laudable (read what the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism had to say here), promoting programs that help the global poor adapt to the effects of climate change and invest in clean energy technology as we cut our carbon emissions.

Senator Boxer is not the only one to commit to going green this year; even the organizing committee for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics has promised a carbon neutral event. However, these commitments mean little without the pressure that forces our leaders to follow through on their promises. The Olympics are a massive undertaking with a huge carbon footprint as athletes, sponsors, media, and spectators travel from around the world to participate, and the committee has so far failed to create a plan to offset air travel emissions or otherwise truly green the Games. As the Olympic committee waivers in its dedication, a group of over 70 Canadian competitors are now demanding that the committee begin to move towards its stated goals immediately. As one of the most watched events worldwide, the Games are a great opportunity to set an example of environmentally-conscious action on a truly global stage. However, if the organizing committee fails to honor its promises, the Games could be an environmental disaster for the entire world to see.

In other news, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm used her State of the State address this week to call for a dramatic decrease in reliance on coal and oil power in Michigan during the next decade. Governor Granholm urged increased investment in clean technology and weatherization to increase efficiency in homes and public buildings as the foundations for a new green economy for her state. Coming from an industrial state hit especially hard by the economic downturn, the steps taken by Michigan should serve as an example to other states and to our federal government as we face economic and environmental crises.

Acting on our principles is often harder, and less publicly appealing, than declaring them. However, President Obama is acting on his commitment to take swift action on environmental issues, promulgating a new series of regulations on efficiency standards for appliances and light bulbs. While complex administrative regulations that dictate how our toasters and microwaves work may not fit into simple sound bites that appeal to the press, these regulations and others like them cut our carbon emissions, spur technological innovation and save us all money. These are the small steps we must be taking as we move towards a clean energy future.

Strong principles are great, but they are only a very early step in what promises to be a long and difficult fight over environment and energy issues in the months and years to come. As we move from awareness to intent to action, let us not forget both our lofty goals and the incremental steps needed to get there. To help, the Union for Reform Judaism recently announced its Greening Reform Judaism webpage, a comprehensive online resource for all things Jewish and green. Check it out and let us know what you think, as we move together from principles to action.

Rachel is an Eisendrath Legislative Assistant working on environment and energy issues at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, DC. She will be a regular guest blogger on To Till and To Tend this year, posting entries every other Thursday. This, and all of Rachel’s entries, can also be found on the Religious Action Center blog.

At a recent meeting of the steering committee of Kansas Interfaith Power & Light, on which I serve, we heard two presentations back to back, and they could not have been more different.  The first, on the most-current science of climate change, was similar in tone and content to the movie, An Inconvenient Truth; the second, by one of the two evangelical members of the committee (in a room full of liberal Christians and yours truly) was about how you can’t really talk about the science in churches, because when they hear “the science” they think “Al Gore” and “partisan politics” and won’t listen to it at all. At the time it struck me as an odd (to say the least) juxtaposition, and thought that ignoring the science in a community like mine – educated, largely secular in outlook – would have you laughed off the bima.

On the other hand, of course, we all know that you can lay science and the polar bears on people all day long and not have it affect their day-to-day decisionmaking one iota.  So maybe, after a fashion, the second presenter was on to something.

Today on Daily Kos, Meteor Blades linked to a report on a study by the Pew Research Center showing that, on a list of 20 voter concerns, the economy ranks first, addressing the nation’s energy needs ranks sixth, while “the environment” ranks 16th and “global warming” dead last. The same study shows that the concern of voters for environmental issues has declined 15% in the past year – roughly the same timeframe as the collapse of the economy.  Given the state of the economy and the fact that we’re still in two wars, this seems unlikely to change during the term of this Congress.

So does that mean we give up on addressing the environment and climate change? No, according to Pew, it means coming at the problem from a different angle – through the things people are concerned about: jobs, the economy, and energy: 

The takeaway message for journalists is that those “stewardship” frames will not be sufficient in terms of galvanizing support for clean energy. In the pursuit of public engagement, the press would be better advised to link sustainability issues to economic growth and “green” jobs.

According to Matthew Nesbit of the Framing Science blog, analyzing the Pew report and also linked from Kos:

Only by “reframing” the relevance of climate change in ways that connect to the specific core values of key segments of the public – and repeatedly communicating these multiple meanings through a variety of trusted media sources and opinion leaders- can the Obama administration and allies generate the widespread public engagement needed to move major policy action forward. (snip)

It’s also time to stop focusing narrowly on remote polar impacts, looming environmental disaster, or symbols such as polar bears. These exemplars are either not personally relevant enough to most audiences, are dismissed as remote and far off in the future, or easily re-framed as “alarmism” sending interpretations back into the mental box of lingering scientific uncertainty. …

In order to generate widespread public support for meaningful policy action, the communication challenge is to figure out how to shift the climate change focus away from the traditional frames and devices towards a new perceptual context that resonates with the values and understanding of a specific intended audience. These new meanings for climate change are likely to be key drivers of public resolve and eventual policy action.

In other words, articulating the potential remedies to climate change through the frames of what people say they are concerned about – the economy, jobs and energy independence – in an intensive, unified way, will be much more effective in getting “the change we need” than 100 slides of Amsterdam under water. That’s just effective politics, which we need a lot more of in the environmental movement, especially now that we have a Congress and president who are willing to listen to what we have to say.

And speaking of effective politics, see also this post by David Roberts on grist.com, claiming that the carbon tax, a beloved approach of climate progressives, is a dead letter in Congress, and that judging by the support it has from business and the right wing, it probably isn’t such a great idea anyway. Rather, he encourages us to return to support of cap-and-trade, which can pass this Congress, may well be more effective than a carbon tax at least in the short term, and is much more easily “messaged” (and less easily demagogued) in the ways described above.

Itry to live in each moment, embodying the adage “it is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end.” As much as I enjoy the journey, ends and beginnings continue to hold greater significance.  We seize the opportunity of new beginnings, and the accompanying clean slate, to create ourselves anew.  On the other end, before we close a chapter of our lives, we have the opportunity to provide final memories for those we are leaving behind. 

President Bush has spent the last few weeks offering us actions with which to remember him by.  Mostly, he is finishing his journey on the same path on which he has journeyed the past eight years.  From infringements on women’s rights to quick sales of our natural resources, there is nothing unexpected or exciting.  But in his last weeks as president of the United States, he has added one more line to his CV –  set aside the world’s largest marine reserve for conservation.  Today, President Bush designated 195,280 square miles (an area larger than the states of Washington and Oregon combined) of islands, reefs, surface waters and sea floor as marine national monuments.  Such designation limits all forms of commercial activity such as fishing and oil exploration.  Bush’s admirable act at the end of his presidential tenure doesn’t clear his reputation as the worst president for the environment, but I hope it won’t go unnoticed, either.

With each dusk, comes a dawn.  President-elect Obama is at the cusp of a new beginning.  It is in these early stages that he has the opportunity to show us his best self.  Through his actions, he will tell us what issues he finds most critical.  His choices for energy and environment cabinet positions represented a strong commitment to environmental action (the environmental community is pleased).  But the real test begins after inauguration.

Since FDR, the first 100 days of office have come to represent the vision and potential of a new president.  It is critical that Obama addresses global climate change in his first 100 days, showing us and the rest of the world that the he will lead the United States and the world in addressing the greatest challenge of our time.

 

 

As we await Obama’s first days, we can encourage environmental action by letting his team know that we are watching and waiting. Join us in telling Obama “As a Jew and an American citizen, I urge you to stand fast in making climate change a top priority in the first 100 days of your Administration.”

We created this blog almost a year ago.  In fact, my first post was about a holiday party.  (click here to read about the “precocious insight” of my (then) three-year old).  Unfortunately, today’s post is my last, as anticipated funding for my work at COEJL did not come through.  I will miss many things about the organization – writing for this blog is certainly among them.  Thank you to each of you for taking the time to read my posts and for helping to create an online community of Jews who care about the environment.  [And for those of you who may have missed a piece or two over the past year, you can find a full collection by simply clicking "Kefer" on the sidebar of our homepage]

While I will certainly miss the work I have done for COEJL, I leave with a sense of optimism.  It is fitting that I write on the heels of Chanukah.  For eight days, I played dreidel and lit the Menorah with my children.  I taught them of the “Great Miracle” that happened so many years ago.  I told them of the miracle of a small vial of oil that was meant to last for only one day, but burned for eight.  I told them of the triumph of a small band of Jews over the much more powerful Syrian army.  These lessons resonate today. 

Through energy conservation and renewables, we can make our limited resources last longer.  As Michael Potts, President of the Rocky Mountain Institute, reports, between 75 and 90 percent of the energy we consume is wasted due to bad design and poor choices.  The International consulting firm McKinsey & Co. recently found that basic, cost-effective improvements in the building sector alone could save up to $33 billion per year by 2030.  And this “great miracle” is not hard to come by.  In fact, as Van Jones, author of Green Collar Economy notes, a “caulk gun and a clip board” are the “high-tech tools” we need to start the transition to a low-carbon economy. 

Like you, I am often frustrated by the climate skeptics and political nay-sayers who question whether we can combat climate change.  Here, too, the story of Chanukah provides an important lesson.  The Jewish people fought against tremendous odds.  And today, we must fight again.  As Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Last week, I told my children about the “Great Miracle that Happened There.”  Next year, I hope to teach them about the Great Miracle that is happening in our own country.

[Click here to send a letter to President-Elect Obama asking to help make this dream a reality]

[Click here to read a collection of my posts]

I fly.  I fly a lot.  There.  I said it, I’ve admitted my problem.  This year has been a crazy year of flying – I averaged close to a flight a month. I had weddings in Los Angeles, Chicago and Israel; my baby nephew and his parents moved out to San Francisco; I had work conferences in various states in the US and delegations abroad.

The problem you ask?

The flights were really expensive.  Not that kind of expensive – many of the flights were frequent flier tickets, gifts or for work, so I didn’t pay very much in dollars.  But those are not the costs I’m referring to.  It’s the costs that don’t come with a dollar sign attached – the environmental externalities. My 11 flights emitted approximately 22 tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.  To put the 22 tons in context, excluding flying, my carbon footprint is an impressive 7 tons (the global average is 5.5).  Including flying, I become worse than the average American (27 tons) [note, you can see those stats after you complete the carbon calculator].

As aware as I am, I don’t regret a single flight.  Because I flew, I danced wildly in celebration, connected regularly with my nephew (and other relatives) and furthered the mission of the Jewish environmental movement.  In the rare occasion that I’m not willing to alter my behavior for the benefit of the environment, what am I to do?

For now, I offset these emissions. Because carbon dioxide is a global pollutant, if I contribute CO₂ here in America and reduce it anywhere else around the world, the net effect on the globe is zero. This is how people become “carbon neutral.” I am not offsetting everything – I generally tread lightly on the earth (through wind power, public transportation and farmers markets) and feel comfortable with emissions that are produced by those actions.

For my work flights, COEJL is offsetting through the Heschel Center’s Good Energy Initiative based in Israel (like this blogger).  One of my cross-country trips was offset through a generous gift from my interns and the rest I’m in the process of offsetting by buying carbon credits sold through the cap and trade programs set up through volunteer and state regulated initiatives in the Chicago Climate Exchange (and if that doesn’t work out, through carbonfund.org).

It’s hard to understand and even harder to calculate the externalities of our actions.  Though the carbon calculator and offset science remains imperfect, it’s a method to take responsibility for our actions.  At this time, it’s the most I can hope to do.

For further information:

A piece by Rabbi Julian Sinclair about the Jewish meaning behind carbon offsetting

You know it’s December when the Christmas Carols begin.  In the car. At the mall. In the grocery store. The music is unavoidable.  At least the lyrics are generally upbeat and the message is uplifting.  But this December, the coal industry co-opted Christmas.  In an unparalleled green-washing ploy (worse, even than Chevron and Dixie), the coal industry (through a front group dubbed “America’s Power”) has sunk to a new low: an interactive video in which inane chunks of coal sing parodies of familiar Christmas songs.  As a Jew, I may not believe in Jesus as my Savior and King, but I certainly would not suggest that coal should hold that title in his stead.  And I certainly cannot condone the sacrilegious ad campaign of an industry that is the leading cause of climate change.

Viewers of the ad are invited to select a background and dress the coal bits in a variety of hats and scarves before selecting from a menu of songs, like “Clean Coal Night” and “Frosty the Coalman,” in which the chunks exclaim:

“Frosty the Coalman is getting cleaner everyday
He’s affordable and adorable and helps workers keep their pay
There must have some magic in Clean Coal technology
For when they looked for pollutants, there was nearly none to see.”

But the hats and scarves can’t disguise the truth: clean coal is a myth.

 First, there isn’t a clear definition.  In fact, to some, clean coal simply means that the coal was bathed before burning.  Generally, when I hear people refer to “clean coal,” I assume they mean that the power plant captures the carbon emissions and injects it deep into the earth’s surface.  An interesting concept, to be sure.  However, at this point, it’s as fanciful as Rudolph.  Sure, we can invest billions of dollars into exploring clean coal – as our leaders on both sides of the aisle suggest – but wouldn’t our money be better spent investing in alternatives to coal?  As Larry Schweiger, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said in the launch for a coal reality campaign, “It’s time to build a better energy future with existing clean sources like wind and solar that will create jobs, boost our economy and confront the climate crisis head-on.”  After all, no matter how clean it may eventually be to burn coal, we’re still blowing off the tops of mountains to get it. 

 

It turns out, clean coal caroling is too low – even for the coal industry.  After being subject to scorn by environmental groups, bloggers and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, America’s Power pulled the carolers from its website and took down its Facebook page – but not before “Asthma Al” and “Black Lung Billy” joined the Group.

 

…And next year, if dirty power still hopes to alter Christmas music to hock its wares, perhaps it should turn to NRDC Blogger Rob Perks for a collection with more accurate lyrics. 

 

[Click here to view "This is Reality," a commercial that tells the truth about coal today]

[Though the coal industry pulled its ad, you can still view "Frosty the Coal Man" here]
[When you're done viewing, click here to tell America's Power to clean up its act]

I love winter – cold days call for hot chocolate, roaring fires, cozy sweaters and snowball fights.  But the short days get to me. Sunlight, even when it’s 20 degrees, warms me, but leaving the office in the dark hurts. The rabbis must have shared some of this sentiment – I doubt it’s chance that our Festival of Lights, Hanukkah, falls during the darkest days of the year.

This year, the first night of Hanukkah actually falls on the darkest day of the year – the Winter Solstice.  Which is coincidence of course, because the Jewish calendar functions off the lunar cycle, right? True, except for a once-every-twenty-eight year holiday called Birkat HaHammah – Blessing of the Sun.  On this day, the Jewish community celebrates the tradition-based return of the sun to its original place in the heavens at the precise time and day of its creation.  Tradition states that this happens when the Vernal Equinox falls out on a Wednesday morning (for more detail, click here) – rabbinically speaking, the next time this happens is April 8, 2009. 

This year of 5769, it seems too marvelous that the solar occurrences of Winter Solstice and Vernal Equinox are celebrated on the Jewish calendar. In response, COEJL has created a 1^st night of Hanukkah ceremony that acknowledges the wonders and sustenance of the sun.

This year of 2008, it also seems impossible to celebrate the “birth of the sun” without acknowledging its full potential. At a time when we all understand the disastrous consequences of uninhibited fossil fuel consumption (e.g. global warming), along with the incredible fact that the Sun provides Earth with as much energy every hour as human civilization uses every year – Birkat HaHammah must be a time of energy awareness and action. To this effect, a coalition of Jewish groups has come together to make sure this happens.  To read more, go to www.blessthesun.org.

Happy Hanukkah!

p.s. for more Hanukkah tips check out the new Green Gift guide and our CFL Hanukkah campaign.