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)].

I just returned from an extraordinary visit to Central America.  I will long remember the region's natural beauty, its cobblestone streets, and friendly inhabitants.  But I will also remember something that is much less idyllic – the litter.  In particular, I will remember three very striking moments on my trip.

The first occurred aboard a "chicken bus" in El Salvador.  I recoiled as a young woman threw an empty bag out the open window.  I watched as the toddler on her lap placed a near empty juice bottle to her lips.  She ran her tiny finger along the rim, trying to gather the last drops of her drink.  I waited in anticipation for two hours to see whether the child would toss the bottle out the window as her mother had done.  For two hours she clung to the bottle, periodically shaking it about to see if she could make more juice appear.  As we approached our destination, the girl's mother grabbed the bottle – and tossed it into the street.  I thought briefly of the words of the Senegalese philosopher Baba Dioum: "In the end, will save only what we love, we will love only what we understand, we will understand only what we are taught."  And I longed for an opportunity to teach this young child about the beauty of her country.

Days later, I would remember this child as I walked alongside Candido Melgar, a humble and kind Honduran.  We hired him as a guide one afternoon to explore Celaque National Park.  Candido was the perfect guide: knowledgeable, patient – and $20 for the day.  Moments after we entered the park, Candido pulled a plastic bag from his pocket.  For hours, he walked along, highlighting the flora and fauna – and bending to pick up discarded water bottles and candy wrappers.  Seven hours later when we descended the mountain, three bags of trash were tied precariously to his small pack.  "I've noticed Americans do not litter," Candido remarked.  "I wish we could teach Hondurans to do the same."  Candido bemoaned the environmental ethic of his countrymen – and thought wistfully of a national park that could somehow be protected from the people it was meant to serve. 

The third memory was perhaps the most disheartening. My husband and I were hiking along the beach in Livingston, Guatemala. Ultimately, we would arrive at a series of cascading pools – the "Siete Altares."  The destination was spectacular.  But the journey was startling: The beach was completely covered in litter.  I thought briefly of Candido and his commitment to cleaning the national park in his backyard.  Yet, the scattered debris in Parque Celaque was no match for the Guatemalan shoreline, which was covered with abandoned fishing nets, bottles, and toiletries.  I thought briefly of collecting some of the debris – but quickly realized it was no use.  In fact, occasional clusters of trashbags were decomposing in several spots along the shore – evidence of well-intentioned visitors before me who lacked either the energy or resources to see their efforts to completion.

So, where does that leave me?  Two weeks in Central America.  Three countries and three stories that will long linger in my memories.  In truth, litter is the least of the problems our world faces.  Certainly, a plastic bottle along the shoreline is less concerning than rising temperatures that will cause our oceans to destroy adjacent cities.  Yet, I don't think we can tackle these bigger problems unless we address the litter. 

Any student of sociology has learned of the broken windows theory  -- broken windows left unrepaired lead to more vandalism and crime; uncorrected, graffiti begets graffiti.  And unadressed, litter begets litter.  Conversely, if we clean our beloved places, we teach our children the importance of caring for the world around them.  If the shoreline is clean, perhaps people will demand laws to protect the fish and water that live there. 

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.

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?

A few days ago, I purchased a sandwich from a local deli.  As an afterthought, I asked for an extra piece of cheese for the baby.  Before I could take the slice, the counterperson smiled brightly and immediately placed the two-by-two inch square into a 16-ounce cup with a plastic lid.  "Is that for here or to go?" she queried, stuffing a three-inch stack of napkins into a plastic bag. As she rang up my order, I surreptitiously returned the napkins to a receptacle on the counter.  The cup, unfortunately, would have to be "recycled" into a blog post. 

Last week, the G8 announced that they would (with, as the Daily Grist reports, a number of caveats) aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by fifty percent from current levels by mid-century.  An ambitious goal, to be sure – yet, the scientific community has told us we need to reduce emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming.  Whether the right number is fifty percent or eighty percent – the numbers are high enough to make your stomach sink and your head spin.  What does it mean to cut emissions by more than half?  And how can we possibly accomplish this?  Certainly, how can we accomplish this when we live in a society that finds it necessary to cover a single slice of cheese with a cup and a lid?

The answer is we can't. 

As long as we live in a society where a sandwich is accompanied by its weight in napkins; where a container of yogurt is served with a plastic knife, fork and spoon; and a single gallon of milk is placed inside two plastic grocery bags, we will not win the battle against climate change.  Solving the climate crisis is going to require a fundamental change in our national consciousness.  We must learn to rethink consumption and redefine our "needs."  And we cannot simply defer to the government to make these changes.

Sometimes I get overwhelmed when I think of the enormity of our needed reductions.  But the Styrofoam cup is half full: with so much excess, the initial cuts will be easy.  In fact, a report released earlier this month by Environment America announced that simple building efficiency measures could reduce US energy consumption by 11%.  A December 2007 report by McKinsey and Company identified more than 250 existing technologies and strategies that could reduce US emissions by 28% in 2030.  And imagine how we can each augment these numbers with countless changes in our own lives – from taking our own grocery bags to the market to riding public transportation to work. 

Indeed, America will come a long way toward addressing the climate crisis when cashiers begin to serve fries without a side of plastic.  And tomorrow when I take my kids for icecream, I'll be sure to ask for it in a cone – hold the cup and spoon.

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.

Though told in jest, the joke teaches a valuable lesson. We cannot be so blinded by our political agenda that we ignore the signs in front of our eyes. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate began a historic climate debate. As I wrote on the eve of that debate, "simply forcing a national discussion about climate change is a victory." In many respects, the climate vote was an extraordinary success. Forty-eight senators voted to move to substantive discussion on the bill. Six others submitted statements to the record indicating that they likewise supported continued debate. Combined, a comfortable majority in the Senate thus supports aggressive federal action on climate change. And, as the Union of Concerned Scientists reports, many of those who voted in favor of such action had previously opposed such initiatives – even though the legislation at issue was stronger than bills the Senate has considered in the past. Fortunately, as Senator Boxer explained, "We [now] have a road map as to where our colleagues are. We will give the road map to the next president so he knows where our colleagues are and where are the consensus areas and where are the difficult areas."

Yet, despite these accomplishments, the climate debate was, in other respects, a tragic missed opportunity. Like the man waiting on his roof for divine intervention, many members of the Senate seem to be awaiting an intangible sign from above – ignoring the signs that G-d has already sent to Earth. On the second morning of the climate debate, opponents insisted that they were not familiar with the bill due to a handful of technical changes that had been made in its final hours. In a move witnessed but once a decade, they insisted that the clerk read the bill – all 492 pages of it – on the Senate floor. For most of the day – more than eight hours – the clerk droned on, reading of offsets and auctions, allocations and subsidies.

And then G-d intervened.

At mid-day, thunderclouds descended over Washington, D.C. The sky darkened and rain pummeled the Capitol. I approached the building amid announcements of a "severe thunderstorm warning" on the Senate intercom system. The National Weather Service declared a tornado watch with wind gusts of up to 70 mph, admonishing citizens to "take cover" and "move to a safe place" to avoid flash floods. My home outside the Nation's Capitol lost power for two days.

A tornado warning is disconcerting in and of itself. But its impact is all the more dramatic when viewed in this context. As Senator Reid (D-NV) explained on the Senate floor, 2008 is on track to be "the deadliest year in the history of tornado deaths" in the United States. Since January, more than 110 people have lost their lives due to tornadoes – compared to an annual average of 62. I don't imply that a single tornado season confirms climate change, but it certainly doesn't suggest that we're heading in the right direction either. And, if an anomalous tornado season weren't warning enough, G-d has sent a steady succession of reinforcements – in the form of flooding in the Midwest, a drought in California, and a heat wave on the east coast.

NRDC policy director, David Doniger highlighted the curious coincidence of the climate debate and the tornado advisory in his blog. In it, he challenged readers to "draw [their] own conclusions." As I heard the weather advisory on the afternoon of the climate debate, I had only one thought: the bureaucracy of the political process had gone on long enough. As thunder crashed from the heavens, G-d had sounded a wake-up alarm for 100 Senators on Capitol Hill. "Do something," He implored. "Assume your role as my partner in creation, and help me to repair the world." The next morning, 54 of them heeded that warning and voted to proceed to the debate. Unfortunately, 46 others are still waiting on their rooftops for a sign…

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.

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.