Religion and Ethics Newsweekly

View the PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly episode Religion and the Environment, aired April 19, 2013 (featuring the cyclists both on their bicycles and cleaned up in the halls of Congress).

Want to see Interfaith Power & Light founder Rev. Canon Sally Bingham's extended interview?  It's online over at PBS, too, as is the extended interviews with Sarah Jawaid, and Rabbi Fred Scherlinder Dobb.

Before you head out to the wider 'net, scroll down to see the elevation change pictures from the cyclists, thanks to Dave Hunter's nifty GPS watch.   The first-day ride was a little longer than it appears -- he forgot to start the watch until the end of the community ride.

Bike blog 2013.6: Hill Visits

Bike blog 2013.6 – final installment 

It is good to be back in State College, where spring comes at a more normal pace. It was 92 degrees yesterday in Washington as we walked the halls of Congress, and it seemed that the cherry trees that had only just blossomed were already losing their beauty in the hot breeze. 

This was my second time visiting our Congressional representatives, and I absolutely recommend that everyone go to Washington to do this at least once in your life! Dan Tomaso (Ray’s grad student who drove the van down from State College to transport the tandem back home) came along for some of the visits and said afterwards that he came away feeling much better about his government than he ever had before. 

I understand what he means. Our Congressional representatives may seem far away, but I really get the sense that the whole place is designed to provide access to any citizen who makes the effort. All the office buildings are open to the public, and the security lines were better than most airports. Every office door says: “please enter” and when we did, a receptionist was always friendly and happy to help. 

Cricket made all of our appointments in advance, and when she writes and asks for an appointment to talk about climate change (not everyone’s favorite subject), they carve out some space in their busy schedules. Generally, this means 15 minutes with a legislative aide, but sometimes it’s more. 

We separated into three teams: Jess and Hannah met with aides to both our senators, and they were very solicitous of Hannah. When she brought out the more than 100 prayers and drawings she had collected, they were delighted, even making copies of several for their own records. The PBS cameras were right there to record the moment as well. 

I was with Ray and Dan, and our most surprising meeting was with Jordan Clark, chief of staff for Rep. Glenn Thompson, Republican for PA-5. Rep. Thompson is my representative, so I was particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak with someone in the office. 

A few things about this visit were unusual. In the past, we have spoken with John Busovsky, a staffer who specializes in energy issues – John joined the meeting, but it was Clark who controlled it. Also, meetings are often in cramped quarters, even out in the hall, but Clark sat us down in GT’s own spacious office. Finally, meetings are usually quick and intense, but we sat and discussed the issues for over an hour. 

True to what I had heard about him, Clark is a tough old politico: he had no interest in our bike trip or Hannah’s letters; he feigned ignorance about climate science and tried to goad Ray and me into arguments over alternative energy and carbon taxes. He was playing with us to see what we were made of. 

Far too much happened during that meeting to record here, but about 30 minutes in there was a palpable shift in his tone. I guess he realized that we were serious about finding truly pragmatic solutions to this civilization-challenging crisis. He emphasized his own concern for the poor and for the environment, and invoked his Catholic faith. He seemed genuinely interested in our energy efficiency programs (especially our cooperative venture with Interfaith Human Services) and even offered that at some point, perhaps “GT” (Rep. Thompson) could even help us with an insulation project. 

This sort of shift is precisely what I was hoping for. I am convinced that climate change is too big a problem to be caught up in partisan politics. All parties have to be involved in the solution, and there are many ways that we can work together, at least on some short-term solutions. 

As we now settle (or rather crash) back into our normal lives, my thoughts turn to the members of our immediate families who kept things running for us while we were away: Barb, Jean, Jim and Louise, and Paula. I know I speak for everyone when I say that this trip would not have happened without your support – thank you! 

Finally, I want personally to thank my fellow cyclists: Andy, Dave, Hannah, Jess and Ray. You were terrific, and your good humor in the face of small adversities was very much appreciated! I can’t imagine a nicer group of people to spend five days with. 

See you all next year! 

Jon 

(to see my whole blog, click here) 

(to see Hannah’s blog, click here) 

Marcellus Shale bill HB 1950

It is said that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  Not, however, if that step is mostly in the wrong direction.  That is the case with the recent bill passed by the Pennsylvania House and Senate on Marcellus Shale drilling

A comparison to the Principles for Considering Drilling in the Marcellus Shale: an Ethical Analysis  authored by PA IPL shows how inadequate this legislative response is.  Some principles it only begins to address.  For example, instead of ensuring that overall environmental and health impacts are sharply reduced (principle 2),  this bill provides only minimal environmental protections.  Some principles it fails to address at all.  For example, this bill does absolutely nothing to move Pennsylvania toward a sustainable energy future (principle 1).  And in one case, this bill is a step backwards.  Principle 3 notes that drilling has already set neighbor against neighbor, and has done little to create sustainable economic development.  By levying the lowest fees of any state, and especially by placing the burden of levying those fees on counties, this bill will encourage the very "race to the bottom" that our principles warned of.  Drilling companies will be able to threaten to leave any counties that decide to levy fees and take their business to neighboring counties.  The disputes we have already seen may very well be exacerbated by this legislation.

We are heartened that, despite pressure both from the Governor and from those profiting from drilling, there was significant, bipartisan opposition to this bill.  We hope that future sessions of our state legislature will learn from this inadequate "solution" and draft legislation that will protect our present and help move us to a better future.

We hope that members of PA IPL and other Pennsylvanians will continue to engage in creative and constructive dialogue about these issues. 

resources: 

• If you haven't read  Principles for Considering Drilling in the Marcellus Shale: an Ethical Analysis, we encourage you to do so.  It is a framework for thinking about the moral and ethical principles involved in the decisions we and our lawmakers must make.  Each section begins with a quote from a sacred text.  We invite individuals (both lay people and clergy) to join us by signing on to the document.  You may do so via email.  
• State Impact PA is a collaboration of WITF, WHYY, and NPR covering "fis­cal and envi­ron­men­tal impact of Pennsylvania’s boom­ing energy econ­omy, with a focus on Mar­cel­lus Shale drilling."  It links to newspaper articles all over the state as well as to reports on the 3 radio stations.
• HB 1950, now Act 13.  The bill is written in legislative language, and is 174 pages long, so you may wish to refer to a more digested version, or ask your local legislator for help understanding some of the provisions. 
• Here is a summary just of the bill's provisions for local zoning from the Centre Daily Times.   A community forum for discussing the shale fee has been set in Centre County.  Look for opportunities for public discussion as well as local experiences and concerns in your local paper.
• A free Public Issues Forum (cosponsored by State College Area School District Community Education,  the Schlow Centre Region Library, and the Centre Daily Times) will be held at CPI on April 14.

Carbon-Intensive Keystone

PA IPL Board member Joy Bergey has been researching the Keystone Pipeline.  While an oil pipeline from the tar sands of western Canada to Texas seems very far from Pennsylvania, the impacts reach beyond the extraction and transport of the fuels.  This fuel is very carbon intensive.

Below is Joy's list of reasons (initially written to appear in a non-faith-oriented context, as was the contact information) that this pipeline is ill-advised.  Let's use this as a call to use only what we must, and to do so efficiently.  Let us also use this as a starting point for thinking about the extraction and transportation of fossil fuels generally.  How we might create capacity based on fuels that have a much, much smaller lifetime impact on God's earth, peoples, and creatures?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

The Keystone XL pipeline is a really bad idea whose time should never come. Here's why:

1. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry toxic tar sands oil 1,700 miles from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to be refined and exported.
2. Tar sands are the most carbon-intensive source of oil on the planet — just the production creates three times as much global warming pollution as conventional crude oil.
3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the pipeline would add 27 million metric tons of heat-trapping CO2 annually.
4. The pipeline would do little for our energy security or our domestic economy. Its main purpose is to make this oil available for export.
5. The refineries on the Gulf Coast at the end of the pipeline are in Foreign Trade Zones where oil can be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes.
6. The pipeline threatens America's water resources. Tar sands oil is more acidic and corrosive than conventional oil and is transported under higher pressure, posing a far greater risk of blowouts in the pipeline.
7. Over the last five years, pipelines in Midwestern states with the longest history of moving Canadian tar sands have spilled three times as much crude per mile as the national average.
8. These tar sands pipelines are not environmentally safe. The Keystone I pipeline was predicted to spill 1.4 times per decade, yet spilled 14 times in just the first year of operation.
9. In summer 2011, an older tar sands pipeline spilled more than 800,000 gallons into Michigan's Kalamazoo River — at $725 million, the most expensive U.S. pipeline accident on record.
10. We cannot ensure the security of the nearly 2,000 mile pipeline, making it a target for terrorists.

The facts are clear: This pipeline is bad for our environment, our economy, and our security.

We need clean energy, used wisely and without wasting it, to build our 21st economy.

The Senate could vote on the Keystone pipeline soon!

Call our senators right now:
Sen. Casey (202) 224-6324
Sen. Toomey (202) 224-4254

Tell them to "Vote No on the Keystone pipeline."

It's fine to leave a message on voice mail; just be sure to include your name, municipality and zip code. Thank you.