JUST ENGAGE

This Saturday, Jews around the world will read Moses' challenge in Deuteronomy: "I place before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. … Choose life that you and your descendants shall live."  (Deut. 30:15-20) These words are both our Biblical mandate to respond to the climate crisis – and instructions for the nature of that response.

People will die because of climate change.  Last year, the IPCC predicted declining rainfall could reduce agricultural yields in parts of Africa by 50% by 2020.  One third of the world is already considered "water scarce" – and the World Resources Institute projects that this number will double by 2040.  Indeed, the crisis in Darfur can be largely attributed to conflicts over scarce water resources - resources made scarcer because of climate change.  As Jews, we must "choose life" to avert these dangers.

But how?

The answer is in the same remarks.  A commentary in a well-known translation of the text notes that "life" actually refers to "livelihood."  Thus, Moses exhorts the Jewish people to find employment so that they can sustain life.  But what if that employment itself both saved life – by averting the climate crisis – and sustained life by providing a livelihood?  Green jobs do exactly that.  By training American workers to retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient, expand out transit system, and support an emerging system of wind, solar and advanced biofuels, we can build a green economy and lift millions of Americans out of poverty.

Last month, the Center for American Progress (in partnership with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst) released a report entitled “Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy,” finding that the United States could create two million jobs in only two years by investing in a rapid green economic recovery program.  This green stimulus plan would create nearly four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry and 300,000 more jobs than a similar amount of spending directed toward household consumption. Last week, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Bracken Hendricks of CAP testified that August unemployment was at a five-year high, new housing construction continues to slow, and housing values have plummeted by nearly a third from the same time last year.  Clearly, the time couldn't be better for investment in green technology. 

More than 3,000 years ago, Moses implored the Jewish people to "choose life."  Today, we must make the same request of our government: help the American people choose a green, sustainable livelihood – so that we and our descendants may live.

[This weekend – on the very day when Jews around the world read Moses' command to "choose life," 1Sky, Green for All, the We Campaign, and tens of thousands of Americans are mobilizing for Green Jobs Now. People of all backgrounds will organize Green Jobs Now events, with a special focus on low-income communities and communities of color.  Click here to find an event in your community and to download an organizers toolkit. For more information, contact Josh Lynch (josh@greenforall.org/ 510-663-6500 x314) or Adi Nochur (adi@1sky.org/ 301-270-4550 x22)].

67% of Americans who say they care about the environment do so because it’s “God’s creation.”

Almost 50% of Sierra Club members go to a house of worship at least once a month.

Whoa.

I hope that it’s no surprise to any readers that there is a strong faith-based environmental movement. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment – made up of Jews (COEJL), Catholics, Protestants (NCC Eco-Justice) and Evangelicals (Evangelical Environmental Network) – has been around for over 15 years. Interfaith Power and Light (IPL) is an environmental initiative with over 25 state chapters. To these organizations and many of their affiliated houses of worship, connection between Earth stewardship and faith is clear.

Sierra Club has recently noticed this powerful movement and published a report: Faith in Action: Communities of Faith Bring Hope for the Planet, which includes the stats mentioned above. Beyond an introduction which delves into the power of faith-based action, it shares stories of 52 communities of faith – one for each state, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico – where faith propelled them to critical ecological and sustainable action. As the report notes, the environmental movement was secular, shying away from “values” and dare I say it, “creation.” Never before has a study like this been done. But the environmental (and political) significance is enormous!

Though there is a clear danger in grafting “God” with “politics,” (I hope I don’t need to explain) even Sierra Club can’t ignore its wonders. 86% of the world’s population affiliates with a religion. The report notes that all the religious environmental initiatives “coalesce around a few key broadly shaped principles: stewardship, justice and concern for ‘the poor,’ and concern for one’s neighbor and future generations.” Agreement on these principles may not bring world peace. Frankly, slight variations of interpretation continue to yield devastating wars.

If we can harness the energy of religious faiths to the issues of earth stewardship, then we might just have a chance.

As an undergrad, my professors explained that climate change would never be solved. Politicians, after all, will only seek solutions for problems that they can tackle in four-year cycles. And people will only seek solutions for problems they can see. But carbon emissions are invisible and global warming would not affect us for generations. Or so we thought.

But now, the effects of climate change are felt on a daily basis. Global temperatures have increased by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. This spring, an ice sheet the size of Manhattan crashed into the Arctic sea. The recent listing of the polar bear as a threatened species explicitly acknowledged the role of climate change in their decline. The genocide in Darfur is widely attributed to resource scarcity caused by climate change. In short, climate change is no longer a problem we can shut our eyes to.

Unfortunately, to many people, climate change remains invisible. As reported in Reuters, Tesco, the world's third-largest food retailer, recently announced a plan to end that. It will begin placing carbon labels on 20 products to help consumers see the greenhouse gas emissions per serving of certain items including potatoes, orange juice, cleansers and light bulbs. John Tierney, likewise imagines that consumers would change their behavior if consumers could only visualize their emissions. In a recent article in the New York Times, Tierney, highlights a number of gadgets that would help consumers visualize their emissions. One gadget, called "the Wattson" changes colors based on electricity consumption. Tierney imagines a world where people would wear electronic jewelry to report their carbon use. These flashing mood rings and pendants would immediately allow onlookers to assess the carbon habits of their peers. And, Tierney speculates, "If the delegates to future conferences on climate change are expected to wear illuminated symbols of their energy consumption, they won't be visiting any more spots like Bali."

Tierney isn't alone in trying to figure out ways to make carbon tangible. A team of four teens in England recently won a competition for their proposed invention: the "Enuffometer." The gadget would provide minute-by-minute monitoring of energy use, with results that could be text messaged to the owner's mobile phone – and remotely disconnect wasteful appliances. As the insightful youthful inventors explain, the Enuffometer helps people visualize their emissions since "people find it much easier to fight something they can see." Well put.

Carbon mood rings and the Enuffometer will likely be among the tools of the future to help us visualize our carbon emissions. But other gadgets already exist. The "Kill a Watt" helps users determine how energy is being used around the house – so that they can cut back on wasteful devices. [You can purchase a Kill a Watt (and other energy-saving gadgets) at www.coejl.earthaidkits.com.]

Those of you who read my posts know that, for me, climate change is anything but an invisible problem. To the contrary, I fear its effects are far too visible. But even I could benefit from a flashing reminder when my energy use is excessive. After all, we all need someone to remind us when we've used "Enuff."

[For more on ways that already exist to visualize the effects of climate change, read Liore's May 28 post, "Have to See it to Believe it?"]

-----------

I'd love your thoughts on other ways we could send consumers the right signals about energy use.

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 .

Click here to urge your Senator to support The America's Climate Security Act.

I've been feeling pretty self-righteous lately.  About a week ago, I switched our home power supply to wind.  It had been on my "list of things to do" for months.  Every time I walked into my synagogue, I made a mental note to contact Interfaith Power and Light to learn more about renewable offsets.  And I kept meaning to grab one of the brochures about "clean, green power" on display at my local hardware store.  But, between my packages and my children, I never seemed to have a spare hand or a spare minute.  But last week, I finally decided to make the switch.  And it feels great.

For months, I've asked Senate staffers to support a provision that would require 15% of US energy supply to come from renewable sources by 2030.  I've bemoaned the last-minute omission of this mandate from the Energy Bill, which was signed into law last December.  I've written blogs, issued action alerts, and signed multiple coalition letters about the need to extend renewable energy tax credits to encourage continued investment in wind power.  And then I remembered Gandhi's exhortation: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."  Sure, I'd love to mandate that all Americans purchase clean, home-grown power. And I'd love to provide the incentives to make this economically viable. But climate change is moving faster than the political process – and I can vote for change with my light-switch.   As I wrote when the "We" campaign was first launched on national television, the key is to "mobilize America – and, in turn, empower our leadership." 

It turns out, this satisfaction is fairly cheap to come by.  For about 5 cents more per kilowatt hour – less than $500 per year – I can fuel my home on local wind power, instead of coal.  And you can, too (simply click here to find a green power supplier in your state). 

My purchase comes at a remarkable time.  Last Monday, the US Department of Energy released a new analysis concluding that wind energy could produce 20 percent of US electricity by 2030.  Critically, the report concludes that this energy could be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.  This makes sense.  After all, the Energy Information Administration reports that the United States has the third highest wind power capacity in the world -- higher than Denmark. And the American Wind Energy Association reports that wind power has the potential to provide more than twice the electricity generated in the United States today!

At a time when our government (and each of us) is concerned about a faltering economy and lost jobs, the federal report estimates that the wind forecast will create 500,000 new jobs.  At a time when scientists are telling us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, the federal report concludes that domestic wind capacity alone has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by 25% (displacing up to 50% of natural gas and 18% of coal electricity demand). 

As a student in college, my car was emblazoned with the words: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."  The 14,000 kWh my household uses this year will not single-handedly solve the climate crisis.  But imagine the cumulative effect if we all made the switch.  [Fellow COEJL blogger, Nina Beth Cardin imagined just that in this inspirational post]  And imagine how this effect can be multiplied when the political process catches up with popular demand. 

Click here to find out about COEJL's Earth Aid Kit campaign and purchase products that will make your electricity dollars go farther.

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. 

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. 

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]

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.

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: