Coal Exports: 2012 PEC Advocacy Brief

By Jenny Holmes, PEC Advocacy Committee Co-chair and Former PEC Moderator

 

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”  

Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, January 1998

When social and environmental costs are not considered, coal is the cheapest fuel for generating electricity in the United States, but coal industry plans of the past several years for a massive expansion of coal-burning plants for electricity have been thwarted.  Increasingly, wind power is price competitive with coal.  Citizen action and better regulation are also key reasons for a decline in coal consumption. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic coal consumption during the fourth quarter of 2011 was down by 18.8 percent from the third quarter of 2011 to 227.1 million short tons.

Rather than allowing coal to stay in the ground, coal companies see a growth opportunity in exporting coal, especially from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. The plan is to transport it on long coal trains and massive cargo ships through Washington and Oregon, and sell it overseas. Some ports on the East and Gulf Coasts currently export coal overseas, but the proposals for West Coast terminals would exceed their volume.  In April 2012, Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden stated that a “timeout” is needed on coal exports to consider the implications. PEC strongly agrees. The agency with federal  jurisdiction over coal leases in the Power River Basin is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Currently, there is no national policy on coal exports, but clearly the time has come. 

The Powder River Basin (PRB) represents one of the largest coal reserves in the world. According to the BLM, coal from the PRB used in power plants accounts for nearly 14% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The nation's two largest coal companies, Arch Coal and Peabody, and the Australian-based Ambre Energy, are working on massive coal export terminals at Longview, WA and Cherry Point, north of Bellingham, WA. There are also potential proposals for many other communities, including: Grays Harbor, WA, Boardman, OR, Coos Bay, OR and St. Helens, OR.

Shipping up to a hundred million tons of coal a year to primarily to Asia through West Coast ports would spread toxic coal dust in rail communities and clog  railroads and ports, disrupt traffic at at grade crossings, risk health, pollute  air and water, and contribute to climate change. Trains will go through low-income and people of color communities already facing disproportionate environmental injustice. 

Investment in infrastructure to ship strip-mined PRB coal through Northwest ports translates into decades of carbon emissions and toxic pollution from new coal plants across Asia built to take advantage of cheap coal. The pollution would come right back to the West Coast by winds across the Pacific Ocean.

Although new jobs are touted as a reason to export coal, committing shorelines, rail lines, and port communities to coal export would foreclose options for more robust and sustainable economic development. Also, the Northwest is known as a leader in sustainable energy and establishing the area as the center of US coal export flies in the face of that image. 

Proposals to ship coal to Northwest communities to be burned in Asia are in conflict with  with eco-justice norms of sustainability, participation, sufficiency, and solidarity and the 12 ethical guidelines. The guidelines of  equity, efficiency, risk, cost, appropriateness and flexibility are especially relevant.  By further entrenching the use of coal through exports God's creation and God's people are put risk, especially the poor and vulnerable and future generations. The moral and spiritual costs of coal export are too high too move ahead without participation and consideration of all that is at stake.  

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS), under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are needed to adequately assess the environmental and health impacts of coal export terminals and rail transport before any permits for building or expanding use of existing infrastructure are approved. A PEIS considers all of the cumulative impacts on communities and land.  Federal policy around the use of coal from the Power River Basin under the Bureau of Land Management and coal exports in general are called since impacts of coal export proposal are so significant. 

Resources

Background

• Northwest Coal Exports: Some common questions about economics, health, and pollution http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/coal-FAQ.pdf
• Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Coal Dust, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/coaldust-greater5percentsio2/recognition.html 
• U.S. coal consumption fell while exports increased during the fourth quarter of 2011 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5990
• William J. Bounds and Karen H. Johannesson, “Arsenic Addition to Soils from Airborne Coal Dust Originating at a Major Coal Shipping Terminal,” Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, June 21, 2007, 185: 195-207, http://www.springerlink.com/content/98146r1160021h13/
• Energy Information Administration. Coal information. http://www.eia.gov/coal/
• Bureau of Land Management, Powder River Basin Coal, http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal.html
• Coal Train Facts, Information on the Proposed Bellingham,WA Cherry Point Terminal http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/
• Public Financing: Federal Fair Market Value Coal Leases in the Powder River are a Public Subsidy, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis  Training: Financial, January, 2011 http://policyintegrity.org/documents/6.1_Sanzillo_coal_lease_PDF_.pdf 
• Oregon Town Weighs a Future With an Old Energy Source: Coal http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/boardman-ore-considers-a-future-in-coal.html?pagewanted=all

Campaigns and Organizations

• Power Past Coal, www.powerpastcoal.org
• Sierra Club Beyond Coal, http://www.beyondcoal.org/

 

 

Thanks to Dr. Bob Stivers for initial framing and drafting of the introductory section of this document.

The Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline: 2012 PEC Advocacy Brief

By Jenny Holmes, PEC Advocacy Committee Co-Chair  and former PEC Moderator

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk. 

- Dr. James Hansen, New York Times, May 10, 2012

“People of faith strongly believe that we need an urgent response to the climate crisis through continued implementation of better clean air safeguards, construction of a renewable energy grid, and more robust energy efficiency and renewable energy standards. The Keystone XL would only slow the pace of this clean energy transition, continue with business worse than usual, and hasten global warming. We can and must model a way forward for the world, create jobs, and care for God's Creation. 

- The Rev. Sally Bingham, Interfaith Power and Light, January 2012

2009 image from NASA of the Athabasca oil sands in Canada

Tar sands  are a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. Canada has the only large-scale commercial tar sands industry and   Alberta's Boreal forest, downstream for the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, is its center. Currently, tar sands represent about 40% of Canada's oil production. Approximately 20% of U.S. crude oil and products come from Canada, and a  significant portion of this amount comes from tar sands. To extract all of the 2 trillion barrels of oil in tar sands, an area larger than the state of Florida would be destroyed. 

Transcanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline would transport heavy crude oil from Alberta's tar sands to refineries in the Gulf Coast. Most of this crude would be made into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin American. The argument that the Keystone XL pipeline reduces U.S. dependence on foreign oil is not valid. The best way to improve energy security is to reduce demand. A U.S. Department of Energy report found that the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports was through reducing demand through fuel efficiency. Rainforest Action recommends redirecting “the $70-100 billion dollars the United States is set to invest in tar sands infrastructure into research and development of sustainable energy alternatives such as electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and solar and wind energy. “ PEC strongly agrees. The more invested in fossil fuel infrastructure of any kind, the less is available for development of sustainable energy and the harder, and more expensive, the needed transition to renewable resources will be. 

Pollution from mining and processing tar sands is significant. The processing of tar sands releases air pollutants that can increase asthma and respiratory diseases, cancer and cardiovascular problems. Drinking water has been polluted by tar sands activity. First Nations people who derive subsistence from the land are disproportionately affected by the toxic products of tar sands mining and processing. Oil contamination has increased the level of arsenic to 33 times above acceptable levels in moose meat, a dietary staple for First Nations people. 

A strong grassroots movement to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, led by Bill McKibben's 350.org and Tar Sands Action was vital in President Obama's January 2012 rejection of  it, at least in its original route. This route took it directly over one of the 174,000 square mile Ogallala Aquifer which underlies portions of eight states from South Dakota to Texas and over the  environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska.   Other routes are now being considered, but  much larger issues are at stake-- the most significant being the massive amount of greenhouse gases released by exploiting the tar sands. Climate change is a threat to national security and the U.S. State Department, the agency responsible for permitting the Keystone XL pipeline, knows this and it should figure significantly in its analysis. The U.S. State Department admitted in October 2011 that its environmental review of Keystone XL was conducted by a contractor paid by the pipeline company itself, a potentially illegal conflict of interest.  

As with MTR, all 12 ethical guidelines are violated by tar sands mining, processing and transport. The guidelines of  equity, efficiency, risk, cost and aesthetics are especially relevant.  

Resources

Background:

•  Dirty Oil Sands, http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/quick_facts/
• What are the Tar Sands? | Rainforest Action Network http://ran.org/what-are-tar-sands#ixzz1uXOBEZJq
• Alberta Energy, Oil Sands, http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OilSands/791.asp
• Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands Development in Alberta, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50186
• Death by a thousand cuts: Impacts of in situ oil sands development on Alberta's Boreal  Forest, http://www.pembina.org/pub/1262
• Tar Sand Pipeline Safety Risks, http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf

Faith Based Resources

• Christian Faith and the Canadian Tar Sands, A KAIROS Reflection on Sustainability and Energy (September 2008) http://www.kairoscanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sus-TTS-08-09-ChristianFaithAndTarSands.pdf
• KAIROS Tar Sands Position Paper: http://www.kairoscanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sus-TTS-10-07-DrawingLineSandLimitTarSandPositionPaper.pdf 
• Canada’s Tar Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline: What Faithful Texans Need to Know http://texasimpact.org/content/canada%E2%80%99s-tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-what-faithful-texans-need-know
• Background information from Texas Impact: http://texasimpact.org/category/issues/environment
• Religious Witness for the Earth, http://rwearth.org/index.php?page=tar-sands-advocacy

Organizations and Campaigns

• Tar Sands Action, http://www.tarsandsaction.org
• 350.org

Mountaintop Removal: 2012 PEC Advocacy Brief

By Sharman Chapman Crane, Member of the PEC Advocacy Committee, and from Kentucky

Powerful explosives blast open mountains for stripping.

Plainly stated, mountaintop removal (MTR) is the extraction of coal by stripping the mountain of its trees, setting explosives in the rock, blowing up the mountain – sometimes up to 400 feet down to reach a four foot seam of coal. If there is another seam of coal further down the process will be repeated using over 5 million pounds of explosives every day. The blasted soil, rocks, everything living in the soil, and often the trees are bulldozed into the valley and streams and then compacted. Currently 72% of the Appalachian coal is being shipped to China.

The blasting releases trace minerals like selenium, arsenic, mercury, and aluminum in toxic amounts into our air and water. This is what we breathe. The burying of the streams destroys and poisons our waters. The southern Appalachian Mountains supply over 25% of the United States’ surface water. Already over 2,000 miles of streams have been buried.

Mountain permanently destroyed by mining

The coal corporations have been mining coal in Appalachia for over 100 years; surface mining for the past 50 years. Before the mining came in, we were considered the most self-sufficient people in the U.S. Today – the least self-sufficient with the poorest emotional health, physical health, highest mortality rates. We suffer higher rates of birth defects, heart disease, asthma, and auto-immune diseases. We have the highest drug abuse rate per capita in the nation. This type of mining requires 90% fewer employees and 50% of our people have left.

The water carries death. The air carries death. The land has lost its diversity. The people are losing their lives. Our young people struggle to vision a future here. The jobs have left. The people have lost their voices. There is great fear. The people have no options. Many have lost hope. 

MTR violates just about all of the twelve ethical guidelines, especially, renewability, equity, appropriateness, risk, flexibility, participation and aesthetics. A Commissioner’s Resolution opposing MTR was passed by the 217th General Assembly of Presbyterians in Birmingham in 2006. EPA ‘s authority to regulate this devastating practice must be strengthened, not undermined as some in Congress are attempting.

The Agony of Gaia, sculpture by Jeff Chapman-Crane

Resources

Background

• Natural Resources Defense Council Fact Sheet, http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coal/mtr/fmtr.asp
• Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. New York Academy of Sciences, 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/pdf
• Surface Coal Mining Activities under the Clean Water Act, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mining.cfm

Billboard commissioned by LEAF

Faith Resources

• Prayer and Preaching Resources on Ending Mountaintop Removal and Faithful Reflection Guide: Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining, from National Council of Churches,  http://nccecojustice.org/resources/#climateandenergyresources.
• Prayers and prayer requests by people of Appalachia. http://ilovemountains.org/prayers
• 217^th General Assembly, Presbyterian Church, USA, Commissioners Resolution on Mountain Top Removal, https://pc-biz.org/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=1359
• Interfaith Power and Light Policy on Coal. http://interfaithpowerandlight.org/public-policy/
• Reflection on Women’s Stories from the MTR and Climate Change Tribunal, by Rebecca Barnes Davies, http://chej.org/2012/05/reflection-on-womens-stories-from-the-mtr-and-climate-change-tribunal/

Organizations and Campaigns

• Appalachian Voices, http://appvoices.org/
• Christians for the Mountains, www.christiansforthemountains.org/
• I Love Mountains.org is produced by the 13 members of the Alliance for Appalachia who have come together to use cutting edge technology to inform and involve Americans in their efforts to save mountains and communities, http://ilovemountains.org/
• Mountain Justice, http://mountainjustice.org/facts/steps.php
• Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign, http://www.beyondcoal.org/

Hydro-Fracking: 2012 PEC Advocacy Brief

By John Preston, PEC Steering Committee Member and Advocacy Committee Co-Chair

Marcellus Shale Drilling tower

As a new technology, fracking provides a good illustration of how the accounting system of our political-economic system is rigged in calculating the balance of costs and benefits in justifying the social and economic good of energy technology. 

The only costs counted in the marketplace are the costs of extraction, production, and distribution.  What economists call “external costs” which are the uncounted social costs, are not counted in assessing the overall benefit of the technology.  In the case of hydro-fracking, some of the costs NOT being counted include the following: 1) Road building and road maintenance for the heavy truck traffic, 2) Management and transport of the fracking fluids that return to the surface, 3) Water treatment costs, including building new infrastructure able to clean these fluids 4) Public and private health costs from toxicity and radiation that cause illness 5) Loss of green space and the ecological services provided, 6) Loss of the historic and rural character of place and 7) Costs related to the global warming and climate change caused by the unintended  release of methane. Some of these costs can be estimated, but many of these costs are unknown.

Generally, the political-economic system socializes the costs, making the public pay through taxes and through degraded life-style and health.  Yet, the benefits are privatized and flow to the wealthiest in our society.

Hydro-fracking site "man camp" for workers.

Because shale gas is a fossil fuel that adds to greenhouse gas emissions it is not utimately sustainable.  Because it takes advantage of corporate domination in the market place it avoids the norm of participation.  Because it socializes a hidden part of the cost of energy and privatizes profit it looks mainly to the sufficiency of the wealthy and violates the norm of solidarity with all peoples, and those people with the earth.

The policy stance of PEC is to place a moratorium on further fracking operations until the overall social and economic costs can be known and paid for by the industry, sufficient regulation can be deployed, and home rule (i.e. local government) participation guaranteed.  Following the wisdom of the precautionary principle, PEC believes that the burden of proof of the harmlessness to public health, the environment, and local communities and municipalities should fall upon the industry.  This burden of proof should meet certified independent scientific standards, prior to governmental regulatory permits to proceed with this technology.  It is also the burden of government to assure that regulation of this technology is technologically sufficient, affordable, and effective.

Must we choose between energy and clean drinking water?

An overarching step that needs to be taken in the natural gas industry to lessen its impact is to reduce leakage of methane. According to Natural Resources Defense Council, methane, a potent greenhouse gas which makes up as much as 90 percent of natural gas, is leaked or vented to the atmosphere when natural gas is extracted by hydro-fracking and other techniques, processed, and transported. Problems include poorly sealed equipment and losses during compression of natural gas. There are ten technically proven, commercially available, and profitable methane emission control technologies that could collectively capture 80 percent of the wasted methane emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other federal agencies, and the states should require use of these technologies for methane control.

Resources

Background:

US Department of  Energy  2009  Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States  Primer - http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/doeshale/Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf

Fractracker, a clearinghouse of shale gas information.  http://www.fractracker.org/

Fracking Resource Guide http://frack.mixplex.com/fracking

Sourcewatch has a helpful history of fracking and policy background at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking

Study of drinking water contamination from fracking in North Carolina by Duke University . http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling

Leaking Profits (reducing methane gas leakage), Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/energy/leaking-profits.asp

Interfaith Power and Light Policy on Natural Gas Development and Hydraulic Fracturing.    http://interfaithpowerandlight.org/public-policy/

Organizations and Campaigns.  

Note: Endorsement is not applied by listing in this section. These are starting places for PEC members to connect with local and national campaigns and are not exhaustive. Please e-mail PEC at jehrestore@aol.com to let us know about campaigns you are involved with.

Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Hydrofracking Center. (New York)  http://www.citizenscampaign.org/special_features/hydro-fracking-center.asp

Earth Justice. http://earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/fracking-gone-wrong-finding-a-better-way

Center for Biological Diversity.(California).  http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/index.html

Food and Water Watch. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/fracking-action-center/

PEC 2012 Policy Priorities: A Focus on the Ethics of Using Fossil Fuels

Empowered, however, by a just, good, and gracious God, we must resist the temptation of despair. Among the wealthy and powerful such despondency can be self-serving because it leads to moral paralysis. This “cheap despair” changes nothing and preserves the status quo from which the wealthy and powerful currently benefit. Empowered by God’s costly grace, we must work tirelessly with others as individuals, as a church, and as global citizens to live in harmony with the energy resources God has so abundantly provided. 

–The Power to Change: US Energy Policy and Global Warming, 2008 General Assembly

Presbyterians for Earth Care believes that the overarching environmental problem of our time is global climate change and that the issue requires strong federal climate policies.  With a gridlocked Congress, progress in developing and enacting such policies is slow. The burning of fossil fuels is one of the largest contributors to global warming. The extraction, processing and transport of fossil fuels also contribute to global warming and to pollution of air, land and water.  Today there is great need at the local, state and national levels for Christians to question and oppose entrenchment of fossil energy sources to fuel our economy, and those of other nations. Accurate accounting of the social costs of production, transportation, and location of terminals and pipelines for shipment of fossil fuels is vital in ethical energy decision making. In our time, this accounting is lacking and as Christians we are called to be a prophetic voice on fossil fuels as we embody in our lives and congregations a new energy economy based on energy efficiency and renewables.

The General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has carefully considered the problem of global climate change in its 2008 GA document The Power to Change: US Energy Policy and Global Warming. It stands with an overwhelming majority of scientists who say that climate change is already happening and is caused by human beings. Actions to reduce greenhouse gases are needed now.  The GA has also made renewable resources its choice among energy sources, also recommending reduced reliance on fossil fuels.  Finally, the GA had adopted an ethic of ecological justice to guide its consideration of global climate change and its recommendations on energy.  Four norms are identified in this Christian ethical model to guide the church: sustainability, participation, sufficiency, and solidarity. 

PEC is concentrating on four specific energy problems within the larger context of global climate change, energy alternatives, and the four ethical norms for 2012. Toxics and environmental health and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are of great concern and will also be addressed in our 2012 policy efforts, expanded upon in other documents.  This document focuses on energy issues. Our position is summarized next to each energy problem. 

1)    Hydraulic Fracking. Place a moratorium on new fracking until human health and environmental impacts can be adequately evaluated by certified independent science. Put into place regulations that ensure that leaks of any fossil fuel gases are minimized from extraction, transportation and storage.

2)    Mountain Top Removal. Stop this practice immediately as the human and environmental impacts are well known and serious, in addition to its contribution to global warming.

3)    The Keystone XL Pipeline. Do not permit due to impacts on Canadian First Nations and habitat, as well as other communities, water and land.  The project also makes a tremendous contribution to global warming and pollution from the tar sands extraction, processing and finally burning the of the fuel produced.

4)    Coal Export. Coal export terminals and use of transportation corridors for the shipment of coal overseas, especially to China, pose environmental and health threats. Require thorough and broadly-scoped cumulative impacts analysis, also known as a Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment (PEIS) through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The latter is just beginning to engage the policy at the federal level. Coal trains and have many impacts on air, water, land and human health but terminals tend to be permitted on local basis. Senator Ron Wyden (OR) called for a timeout on coal exports in April 2012. The Bureau of Land Management owns most of the land leased for coal in the Power River Basin of Wyoming. 

Together with the four ethical norms, PEC is adopting the energy guidelines of the Power to Change (pgs 13-14). The committee has adopted its twelve ethical guidelines to evaluate energy options:

1. Equity concerns the impact of policy decisions on various sectors of society with special concern for the poor and vulnerable. Burdens and benefits should be assessed and distributed so that no group gains or loses disproportionately.
2. Efficiency is the capability of an energy policy or alternative to provide power with the input of fewer resources. It also means frugality in consumption and a decrease in pollution. New technologies are essential to satisfying this guideline.
3. Adequacy addresses the complex problem of supply. Policies and energy alternatives should be sufficient to meet basic energy needs. The meeting of basic needs takes priority until they are satisfied, then gives way to other guidelines, especially frugality and conservation.
4. Renewability refers to the capacity of an energy option to replenish its source. Reliance on renewable sources should take priority.
5. Appropriateness refers to the tailoring of energy systems to (a) the satisfaction of basic needs, (b) human capacities, (c) end uses, (d) local demand, and (e) employment levels. Energy decisions should lead to a variety of scales and level of technical complexity.
6. Risk concerns the measurable potential of an energy policy or alternative to harm human health, social institutions, and ecological systems. Low risk options are preferable.
7. Peace points to the potential of an energy policy to decrease the prospects of armed conflict. While international cooperation is essential to a sustainable energy future, energy dependence should be avoided to prevent disruption of supplies.
8. Cost refers to monetary costs as well as other social and environmental costs. All costs should be included in the prices consumers pay for energy.
9. Employment concerns the impact of a policy or alternative on employment levels, skills, and the meaningfulness of work. Policies and systems should stimulate the creation of jobs and new skills.
10.  Flexibility points to the capacity of policies and options to be changed or reversed. High flexibility is preferable, and systems subject to sudden disruption should be avoided.
11. Participation and timely decision-making refer to the processes used to set energy policies and choose alternatives. Processes should allow for those affected to have a voice without leading to endless procrastination.
12. Aesthetics points to beauty as one aspect of a flourishing life. Policies and alternatives that scar the landscape should be avoided.

When these guidelines are applied, it is clear that many fossil fuel proposals and projects  have serious ethical deficiencies.  PEC’s Advocacy Committee provides the following background and analysis of each of the four problems. We encourage PEC members to become informed on one or more of the issues, educate their congregation and others and to take action, including through presbyteries and General Assembly.

General Resources: The National Council of Churches Eco-Justice Program has a wealth of faith-based resources on energy ethics, global warming and a variety of energy issues. They include worship, sermon, study and action information. PEC especially commends the 2012 Earth Day Ethics of Energy Guide. This and many other excellent resources may be found at  http://nccecojustice.org/resources/#climateandenergyresources.

Reduce Fossil Fuel Use.

By: Al Pugsley

  Al Pugsley explains how his car works.

For Americans to become energy efficient, we must join together to break our addiction to coal, oil and natural gas.

One way is to switch our transportation to electricity. You can buy an electric car in Kansas City today. Another way is to buy a plug-in hybrid or hybrid.  

I think the auto industry does us a disservice to advertise their cars and trucks by telling the public only the highway mileage rating. For best comparison, we need to know the city mileage as well, because hybrids, unlike standard cars, get the best mileage in city driving.

*

Al Pugsley is a long-time member of Presbyterians for Earth Care and is active at Village Presbyterian Church in Prairie Village, KS. His story about how he came to care about electric cars was recently featured in The Oklahoman's NewsOK blog, and you can read it here.

Eco-Stewards 2012 Offer Postcards from Vermont!

It looks like our Eco-Stewards had a phenomenal week! Check out their "postcards" from their week in Vermont, connecting with God's Earth and each other. 

http://ecostewardsprogram.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/postcard-from-vermont/

Come visit us at the PEC Booth in Pittsburgh June 30-July 4!

Come by the PEC booth to share eco-justice stories with our Executive Committee -- Jane Laping, Sue Smith, and Diane Waddell. We'll also have special guests throughout the week. Check out the schedule below.

Saturday --- June 30 10:00-12:00pm and 3:00-5:00pm 

Meet Lauren Wright, a Young Adult Volunteer serving in New Orleans, LA with the Bayou Blue P.C. Lauren is an Eco-Steward and is from Chattanooga, TN.

Monday -- July 2

Welcome Tom Quigley, who is receiving special recognition from PEC this GA, for his work as coordinator of the Garden of Etna, a community garden in Pittsburgh.  He is a member of Glenshaw P.C. 

Tuesday ---  July 3 from 10:00-12:00pm  

Meet Rev. Dr. Randy Bush, pastor at East Liberty P.C., Pittsburgh -- "The Cathedral of Hope". He will speak at the PEC luncheon, on "Re-Creative Partnerships". 

Tuesday --- July 3 from 6:00pm-8:00pm

Greet the Rev. David Carlisle, pastor of Springdale United P.C., where Rachel Carson was baptized.  David will share information about her homestead in Springdale.

Wednesday --- July 4 from 3:00-5:00pm

Chat with Rebecca Barnes-Davies, Associate for Environmental Ministries, PC(USA), and author of the book Fifty Ways to Help Save the Earth.

For more details on how to engage with PEC at the PC(USA) General Assembly, check out our moderator Diane Waddell's message. 

PC(USA) General Assembly: What You Need to Know.

Dear Colleagues in Earth Care,

Greetings as we breathe the breath of the Holy Spirit in these Sundays after Pentecost!

The 2012 General Assembly timeline is ticking away towards our journey to Pittsburgh.........

PEC continues our plan to welcome you and invites you to join us at booth 310 in the Exhibit Hall and join in our July 5 luncheon where we will announce our winners of our individual and group creation care awards. We will also welcome new PEC Steering Committee members. (Remember, if you haven't yet, you can vote for them before June 15 here.) Food for the luncheon will be purchased at the local market and we will enjoy fellowship of PEC members and other friends.  Members of the Executive Committee of PEC will be there --  Jane Laping, Vice-Moderator, Sue Smith, Treasurer, and I.  We look forward to meeting and greeting you!!! 

We recommend that you to review and talk with your presbytery commissioners about the following:

• There are two Overtures being presented supportive of environmental justice, which PEC recommends passage of:

• Overture 096 in Support of the Environmental Protection Agency from Baltimore Presbytery
• Overture 059 in Support of a '50 Year Farm Bill' (sustainable ag) from Heartland Presbytery

• There is also a recommendation from the Special Offerings Advisory Task Force which recommends sweeping changes to our current special offerings set. There are also three Overtures which recommend retaining a structure similar to our present structure (Overtures 101, 103, 108).  I recommend that you review these and ask commissioners to read carefully the report of the SOATF in order to be well informed and ask questions they may have.  These changes affect the funding of the Presbyterian Hunger Program, our direct partner in agricultural sustainability. It also affects other areas (Self-Development of People, Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, and Peacemaking). See the report below, taken from the PCUSA website.

The Holy Spirit -- and the energy of Wind and Flame -- be with you!!!! 

 Grace and Peace,

 Diane Waddell

 Moderator, Presbyterians for Earth Care

Find PEC on Facebook

Tweet with PEC!

presbyearthcare.org

from the PCUSA Website:

Special Offerings report recommends changes to the Peacemaking Offering

The Special Offerings Advisory Task Force has completed its 3-year study and will bring recommendations to the 220^th General Assembly when it meets this July in Pittsburgh.  Among the sweeping changes to the four special offerings is the recommendation to replace the Peacemaking Offering with a new offering called the World Communion Offering to support “global witness and outreach beyond the United States.” Like the Peacemaking Offering, congregations and presbyteries would retain 25 percent each of the new World Communion Offering. The task force’s recommendations, if approved, would also shift “peacemaking activities” to the One Great Hour of Sharing Offering, to be funded alongside “community development, disaster assistance, and hunger ministries.” The report also recommends that percentage allocations be eliminated from the special offerings and that future program funding instead be done based upon alignment with strategic priorities identified by the General Assembly Mission Council.