JUST ENGAGE

Filling my gas tank is much more painful than it used to be.  With gas averaging $3.61 a gallon last week, I'm spending about $45 with each visit to the pump.  Thankfully, my hybrid can drive 550 miles each tank – but that does not negate the pain of each fill up, regardless of the frequency. 

In a rash attempt to alleviate this discomfort, our political leaders have proposed a "gas tax holiday."  For three months, we will (theoretically) spend about 18 cents less per gallon of fuel, or about 2 dollars each visit to the gas station.  Over the course of the summer holiday, the blog Autopia reports that this proposal will save the average American about $30.  Of course, it's unlikely we'll actually see this "tax break" at all, because oil companies will simply raise the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut.  Americans will continue to pay roughly $3.61 a gallon – but now, our nation will lose billions in potential tax revenue, which could be used to maintain our nation's infrastructure.   And at a time when unemployment rates are already rising, the proposed gas tax holiday could cost more than 300,000 jobs.

The flaws of this approach are clear.  Automobiles are the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the amount Americans drive – rather than creating incentives for people to drive more?  And what better way to incentivize carpooling and public transportation than to raise the price of gas?  In fact, the market is already creating its own incentives, with AAA reporting a decline in miles traveled and sales of compact and subcompact cars reaching record highs last month – a trend Ford's chief sales analyst has called "the most dramatic segment shift" in his 31-year career. And if we want to encourage the use of clean-burning alternatives to fossil fuels and coal, shouldn't we give tax breaks for those alternatives?  Sadly, our leaders are painfully misdirected. They are offering a tax break on the behavior they hope to discourage – yet, as I described in my February 12 post, they have failed to extend tax breaks on activities they should reward. 

More than 2000 years ago, our ancestors fell victim to a similar scheme.  Left alone in the wilderness at the base of Mount Sinai, the Israelites built a golden calf in a desperate attempt to find security.  The calf, of course, did not offer any answers.  To the contrary, when Moses descended from the mountain, he rebuked the Israelites and repeated his journey to retrieve the Ten Commandments.  The calf was an exercise in futility – a false prophet that never brought its intended reward.

Today, it is our leaders who offer a false prophet – suggesting $30 could ease a troubled economy or eliminate our dependence on foreign extremists who control our oil markets.  Like the Israelites, we need strong leaders who can guide us through times of adversity.  We need leaders who will require our cars to drive farther on less fuel and who will support a growing transit system, who will invest in research on alternative energy and provide incentives for the people who use it.  In short, we need leaders who have the courage to introduce policies that will actually reduce our dependence on oil – so that it does not matter if prices rise. 

Today is the 9^th Day, 1 week and 2 days of the Omer

Some links for Omer Study
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation’s Omer Tikkun Olam Text Study
Religious Action Center’s Social Justice Guide for Shavuot
MyJewishLearning.com Omer Section
Counting the Omer: A Tool for Nature Consciousness, Canfei Nesharim
United Synagogue – Making Each Day Count

Two weeks ago, the President announced a "momentous" global warming initiative, which essentially validated the status quo for the next two decades.  As I wrote last week, this proposal misses the mark.  I was not alone.  As the New York Times reports, "critics — including environmentalists, scientists and lawmakers — said the effort was too little, too late."  And the President's critics were not restricted to the United States.  Although the President timed his remarks to kick-off a round of international climate discussions in Paris, the Agence France Press announced that those present at the meeting were universally "dismayed by the tenor" of the President's remarks.  And Germany decried the speech as "a step backward."

On Capitol Hill, Representative Jay Inslee (D-Wash) dismissed the President's remarks as a "can't-do plan for a can-do people."  His concern prompted Representative Inslee, along with Representative Ed Markee (D-Mass) and Henry Waxman (D-Cal) to declare four essential Principles for Global Warming Legislation.  These leaders on climate change policy don't simply want to stabilize emissions in 2025 – they propose substantial reductions (15-20% of US emissions by 2020; 80% reductions by 2050).  In particular, they ask the United States to introduce legislation to:

I applaud Reps. Inslee, Markee and Waxman for stepping forward.  Their declaration alone won't reduce US emissions.  But hopefully, it will create the needed momentum to get a bill introduced in the House.  If enough Members join the Principles, it will send an important message to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the President that the American public believes climate change is real and demands that the US respond.

Click here to read the COEJL Action Alert and urge your Representative to support the Global Warming Principles.  And tell them that these Principles are just a starting point -- it's time to move beyond simply talking about climate change and to introduce legislation that makes a difference.

This week I attended the House Hunger Caucus briefing on the rising cost of food prices.  Many of you may have noticed that your grocery bills have been increasing.  The numbers are out; U.S. food prices rose 4% in 2007 and are expected to increase between 3.5% and 4.5% this year.   The main culprits for this increase are rising energy costs and rising farm commodity prices.  These growing costs affect low-income homes more because those homes spend a larger percent of their budget on food.   A middle class family will spend approximately 12% of their income on food, whereas a low income family will spend about one third of their income on food.

                These price increases are also putting the emergency food systems that are in place to serve the hungry in a pinch.  Second Harvest recently reported that government commodities, the typically healthy food that many emergency assistant programs rely on, have been reduced an astonishing 75% over the past year.

                Although this situation seems painful and is putting even more stress on low-income families, there is some hope.  The Farm Bill, which is still working its way through congress, has a nutrition title that would increase food stamp benefits.  This would help to off set the rising cost of food for families eligible for food stamps.  Along the same lines, the second economic stimulus package, that will be taking shape over the next few months, could give families on food stamps additional food stamps temporarily.  These programs provide a patch to the problem; we still need to continue to work to end the root causes of poverty.

I opened my inbox today to a flood of emails. Yesterday, President Bush issued a much- anticipated "global warming initiative" – but the big climate "splash," left many angry in his wake. The spokeswomen for the White House claimed the President's plan would "lay the groundwork" for the next Administration by providing a "realistic intermediate goal" for US reductions.  Yet, far from "laying the groundwork" for future reductions, the President's proposal has torn away at the foundation of the tremendous efforts of those on Capitol Hill and around the nation to respond to climate change.

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.

Ironically, the Administration claims that its plan will "inform" the Senate-scheduled debate on climate change legislation.  But the Senate does not need the President's assistance. To the contrary, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act provides for US emissions to fall by roughly 2% per year beginning in 2012, leading to 25% emission reductions by 2025 and 60-70% reductions by 2050.  Reductions that will come from every sector of the economy.  Bush's plan – to continue the status quo for nearly two decades – can hardly be seen as "informing" the debate. 

More than two thousand years ago, Rabbi Hillel challenged, "If not now, when?"  Today, Bush declared that we would begin to answer that question in 2025.  But that answer is inadequate.  Climate change is real. And the time for action is now.

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

“It is forbidden to live in a city that does not have a garden or greenery.”

I just returned from Israel where I spent the week with family and friends, absorbing the realities of a Jewish state.  Some aspects of a Jewish state elicited a guffaw (see articles on Mikvah ladies and  chametz), but some I found to be insightful, meaningful and even useful.  For now, I will focus on the commandment of shmita, which is taking place this year, 5768.  Leviticus 25:3-4 explains the mitzvah of shmita.

Six years you may sow your field, and six years you may prune your vineyard and gather in the yield. But in the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest, a sabbath of the Lord: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard.

Torah doesn’t talk science, but in this case, the spiritual tradition is right on target.  The text continues with the ramifications of fulfilling and ignoring the law.  If you fulfill: “then shall the land make up for its sabbath years (26:34).” But, “the land shall be forsaken of (those Israelites who did not practice shmita), making up for its sabbath years by being desolate of them (26:43).”  This isn’t just God having funwith random laws.

Scientifically speaking, when one plot of land is used in the same fashion, year after year, the soil becomes depleted of its nutrients.  Eventually, crop yields weaken until the land is so depleted that it must be deserted.* On the opposite end, when a farmer allows land to lay fallow, nutrient balance is naturally restored, allowing for endless use and production.

Science and Torah take it one step further. Though the owner is not allowed to work the land, the naturally growing fruit remains available to people, wild animals and livestock. By allowing animals in the fields, they naturally fertilize it (think feces), enabling greater yields.

Michael Pollan, author of Omnivore’s Dilemma, spotlights a modern farmer who, by using methods similar to those demanded in Leviticus, manages a model sustainable farm.

It’s rare when Jewish law and modern science lead to a uniform conclusion - hopefully we’ll eventually get the message. 

* Today, many farmers “solve” this problem with intense (oil-based) fertilization, an energy-intensive endeavor that, due to chemical run-off, is the source of a whole range of other environmental problems.

The vision of the Torah is still alive:
Jewish Farm School
Adamah, The Jewish Environmental Fellowship

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.  (In fact, I own every one of her albums, two "Dolly dolls," and 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 responsibility 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.

I am aware that there are some things in my life that I cannot prevent from happening.  A few examples include: getting older, wrinkles (although, I really like wrinkles), and perhaps a stroke.  But, in a culture that focuses so much attention on health, I was taught at early ages that exercise would keep me well.  I played tennis in high school and college, I jog at least five times a week, I even lift weights to make sure that my muscles and bones are strong.  In a few words, I have spent a lot of time making sure by body is in good physical condition– now and for the long term.  Sadly, this may have been completely in vein.             

                Last week I went to a viewing of part one of the new PBS documentary called Unnatural Causes: Is inequality making us sick.  What I learned sadden me, but I suppose, it should not have shocked me.  Apparently, the socio-economic class you are a part of is a real determinate of how long you will live.  So, if you are “poor” you will live about three years less then your middle class friends, if you are middle class you will live three years less then your rich friends.  This is after unhealthy behaviors such as smoking are controlled for.  Also important to note here, African Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders often fare worse then their white counterparts.  As a person who grew up in the lowest 30% of Americans based on wealth, this does not make me happy.  Why did I spend all that time working out, if in the long run my family’s class position will determine how long I live?  Of course this is a much bigger problem than just my health.  America is currently ranked 30^th internationally for child mortality rates and 29^th for life expectancy, yet we spend twice as much annually on health than any other country.  Economic and racial inequality kills more people than cigarettes.  The schools we attend and the income we make are health issues that are just as critical to consider as diet and exercise. 

                Why does this happen?  People who are in the middle and lower parts of the class pyramid are exposed to more health threats ranging from material deprivation to chronic stressors and have less opportunities and resources needed to control their destinies.  For me, this is just one more reason to fight against the inequalities that pelage this nation. 

Needless to say, the documentary is much more informative and interesting than this Blog post.  Therefore, if you want to learn more Unnatural Causes is airing on PBS over the next few weeks.  You can check your local listings for details. 

American Judaism is defined by its extraordinary activism. When Jewish learning and identity needed bolstering, we organized schools, youth groups, JCC’s and Hillels to respond. When “continuity” was a concern, we mobilized to fund funky efforts engaging Jews who hang close to the edge. Whenever Jewish rights and liberties were restricted, we created a network of defense organizations, which helped not only Jews but others who suffered prejudice and exclusion.
In the last decade alone, the leadership of the Jewish community launched such remarkable and successful efforts as Taglit/birthright, designed to confer upon every Jew between the ages of 18 and 26 the right and ability to visit Israel; PEJE – The Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education designed to increase enrollment in Jewish day schools; and the Foundation for Jewish Camping designed to increase the number of Jewish children “participating in transformative summers at Jewish camp.”

All of these efforts - powerful, valuable and successful - were launched because dynamic Jewish philanthropies and donors organized, studied, led, funded and inspired them. These Jewish leaders did not wait for the right combination of staff, ideas, capacity and programs to come to them. They saw a need, a vacuum in our capacity to respond to that need, and mobilized. They gathered the lay leaders, the professional staff, the thinkers and strategists and social scientists, and they put their money behind their commitment.

It is time we utilize that same formula, employ that same energy, engage that same wisdom and dynamics in the arena of Jewish environmentalism. The vibrancy of the environment and the well-being of the Jewish community need nothing less.

The facts are clear: the environment is being rapidly degraded by business-as-usual. We need to re-imagine and redesign the ways we mine, manufacture, build, power, use and dispose of the stuff of society. If we don’t, we will irrevocably deplete and so exhaust our available resources (both natural and monetary) that we will diminish the security, health, dreams and options we bequeath to our children. Thousands of young Jews see environmentalism as the defining issue of their lives. And they see organized Judaism making little to no significant contributions to the cause. Which means they see Judaism (or at least organized Judaism) as making little to no difference to them.    

We can respond to both needs in one comprehensive response. Here is what we must do: