Una historia «breve» de la campaña de desinversión en combustibles fósiles en la PCUSA

 Por Fred Milligan, co-facilitador del Comité de Incidencia del PEC

El 23 de junio, mediante una votación a viva voz unánime dentro de la «agenda de consentimiento» y sin debate —y tras una votación en comité de 50 a 13—, nuestra denominación decidió instar a nuestras entidades inversoras a desinvertir en todas las acciones de empresas de combustibles fósiles. Este ha sido un proceso de 15+ años. El presente documento busca destacar los momentos, actores y acciones clave que nos han llevado a este punto.

2011: Tras la decisión de la Iglesia de Suecia en 2009 de comenzar a desinvertir en acciones de combustibles fósiles, activistas climáticos y estudiantes universitarios de Estados Unidos —en Virginia Occidental y otros lugares— empezaron a prestar atención. El grupo 350.org, liderado por Bill McKibben, amplificó estas acciones locales lanzando una iniciativa de desinversión a nivel nacional.

2012: La gira «Do The Math» (Haz los cálculos) de McKibben, que incluyó 21 paradas por todo el país, instó a universidades, instituciones religiosas y fondos de pensiones a liquidar sus acciones en combustibles fósiles para estigmatizar a la industria y acelerar la transición hacia energías limpias. Inspirados por la parada de la gira en Palo Alto, California, el 10 de noviembre, el equipo «Cool Planet» de la Primera Iglesia Presbiteriana de Palo Alto comenzó a redactar lo que se convertiría en la primera propuesta presbiteriana (conocida como *overture*), que solicitaba una desinversión categórica en combustibles fósiles.

2013: Tras conocer la iniciativa de desinversión en la manifestación «Forward on Climate» (Avanzar por el Clima) celebrada en febrero, Presbyterian environmental activists Dan Terpstra y Wil Howie contactaron a Rebecca Barnes, del Programa Presbiteriano contra el Hambre (Presbyterian Hunger Program), quien los puso en contacto con abby mohaupt y el grupo de Palo Alto. Ellos, junto con otras personas, perfeccionaron el borrador de la propuesta y comenzaron a desarrollar la red nacional que más tarde se convertiría en «Fossil Free PCUSA».

2014: El Presbiterio de Boston y el recién formado grupo «Fossil Free PCUSA» presentaron la primera propuesta de desinversión —respaldada por una docena de adhesiones de otros presbiterios— ante la Asamblea General de ese año. Tras un debate muy reñido, el comité correspondiente en la asamblea, decidió por 30 votos a favor y 29 en contra, remitir el asunto al Comité de Misión, Responsabilidad e Inversión (MRTI) (el agencia denominacional para evaluar los valores de las empuestas en que la denominacion teine inversiones), para su consideración mediante sus procedimientos habituales de diálogo e interacción. Miembros del comité presentaron un informe de minoría ante el pleno y, tras un extenso debate, este fue rechazado en favor de la decisión original del comité de remitir el asunto al MRTI. 

En la imagen: (de izquierda a derecha) Defensores de la propuesta de 2014: Susan Chamberlain, Sue Smith, Dan Terpstra, Megan Gregory, abby mohaupt, Paul Henschen, Peter Anderson, Rob Mark, Pam McVety, Jacob Bolton.

2016: El Presbiterio de San Francisco y «Fossil Free PCUSA» presentan su propuesta ante dicha Asamblea General, contando con el respaldo de 29 presbiterios adicionales; la iniciativa logra superar la fase del comité por un estrecho margen de 31 votos a favor frente a 25 en contra. En un informe de minoría presentado por MRTI, se propone y adopta una resolución alternativa, que prioriza la «trayectoria demostrada de los procesos de diálogo e incidencia del MRTI». Ese mismo año, el PEC galardonó a la iglesia First Pres de Palo Alto por su labor en materia de desinversión.

2018: El Presbiterio de Hudson River y «Fossil Free PCUSA», que para entonces recibía apoyo organizativo de la Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, presentan una propuesta ante la Asamblea General respaldada ahora por cuarenta (40) presbiterios, la mayor cantidad de apoyos jamás registrada para una sola propuesta ante una asamblea general. Aunque el comité de la Asamblea General aprueba una versión modificada de la propuesta, el pleno vota a favor de sustituirla por un informe de minoría respaldado por MRTI y la Junta de Pensiones, el cual elimina la opción de desinversión total. Posteriormente, esta resolución alternativa se modifica para exigir un diálogo focalizado y establecer plazos de actuación respecto a cinco empresas específicas: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy.

2020: La Asamblea General no se reúne debido a la pandemia de COVID. Sin embargo, en los preparativos previos a la Asamblea General del 2020, el Presbiterio de Monmouth y «Fossil Free PCUSA» logran el patrocinio y la adhesión de treinta presbiterios para su propuesta, titulada simplemente «Sobre la desinversión en combustibles fósiles». La decisión sobre esta propuesta se pospone para la asamblea del 2022.

2022: MRTI propone a la Asamblea General la desinversión en las cinco empresas (arriba), pero la propuesta de desinversión total derivada de la asamblea del 2020 (ENV-07) vuelve a ser rechazada. Se logra otra pequeña victoria gracias al dictamen de asesoramiento y consejo del Comité Asesor Sobre Políticas de Testimonio Social (en Ingles, ACSWP), presentado originalmente a la Asamblea General de 2020, junto con su declaración «Invertir en un futuro verde», en el que se respalda la aprobación de la propuesta ENV-07 y la desinversión total que esta plantea. Su planteamiento específico es que la medida de desinversión total en combustibles fósiles representará…

«una declaración ética de que, como denominación cristiana, comprendemos nuestro llamado —desde el Génesis— a cuidar la Creación. Invertir en combustibles fósiles es también una cuestión de equidad: la contaminación tiene un efecto más perjudicial en las comunidades vulnerables y marginadas». Y añaden: «Creer que es posible una economía sin combustibles fósiles puede comenzar por desinvertir en aquellas empresas que los suministran».

El año 2022 resultó ser un momento decisivo en el proceso de desinversión: el PEC redactó su primera propuesta formal sobre el tema, mientras que muchos de los que anteriormente participaban en la «Fossil Free PCUSA» se retiraban de la lucha. Sin embargo, ninguna de las dos propuestas —ni la redactada por el PEC y patrocinada por el Presbiterio de Susquehanna Valley (ENV-08), ni la mencionada anteriormente (ENV-07)— fue aprobada. En su lugar, el comité de la Asamblea General, con la colaboración del personal y los miembros de la junta de MRTI y del personal de la Junta de Pensiones, combinó elementos de ambas propuestas de desinversión en una nueva medida. Esta creó una declaración general de preocupación por el ambiente y el uso de combustibles fósiles, afirmando…

«Debemos avanzar hacia un estilo de vida libre de combustibles fósiles, tanto en el ámbito financiero como en nuestra vida cotidiana».

Para el 2024, el PEC había asumido el liderazgo de la iniciativa de desinversión en combustibles fósiles (iniciada en 2022) y se había volcado de lleno en ella a finales del 2023, redactando y distribuyendo Se presenta una nueva propuesta de desinversión ante la 226 Asamblea General en Salt Lake City. Con el respaldo de diecisiete presbiterios, existe nuevamente un apoyo significativo en toda la iglesia a la postura defendida sistemáticamente desde 2014, la cual también se vio reflejada en el comentario de la ACSWP de 2020/2022 citado anteriormente.

Sin embargo, a pesar de que la ACSWP decide retirar el apoyo a la desinversión que había manifestado en 2020/2022, y de que persiste la oposición de algunos grupos de defensa de causas, la propuesta —junto con las recomendaciones de desinversión del personal y la junta directiva del MRTI respecto a empresas sin vínculos con combustibles fósiles— supera el trámite en comisión sin modificaciones. Esto ocurre paralelamente a la presentación de un informe del MRTI que, según aseguran los moderadores de la comisión, ha sido debidamente enmendado para eliminar cualquier conflicto entre ambos asuntos.

Cuando la medida llega a la sesión plenaria, se aprueba con una amplia mayoría de votos a favor por parte de los comisionados. No obstante, tras el receso para el almuerzo, el moderador de la Comisión de Justicia Ambiental informa a la asamblea que la propuesta aprobada por la mañana es incompatible con la versión del informe del MRTI que había sido aprobada por la comisión y que, por tanto, se requieren más enmiendas. Durante el debate subsiguiente, se reconsidera la propuesta de desinversión aprobada en la sesión matutina y se rechaza en favor de una enmienda al informe del MRTI que añade diez empresas de combustibles fósiles a la lista de desinversión inmediata. El resultado es similar al obtenido en 2018, salvo que esta vez la decisión implica una desinversión inmediata, eludiendo así el proceso de diálogo y compromiso previo. Aun así, el impulso para lograr una desinversión total en combustibles fósiles se ve frustrado una vez más. Esta es la Asamblea General que solicitó la creación de un grupo de trabajo para proponer «actualizaciones» a los criterios de desinversión establecidos en 1984. El informe de dicho grupo de trabajo, presentado en 2026, fue aprobado por unanimidad y refuerza la disposición ya existente en la política sobre la desinversión categórica o «a nivel sectorial».

En la imagen: el Rev. Fred Milligan —co-facilitador del Comité de Incidencia de PEC y defensor de la propuesta — y Drew Hill —delegado joven (YAAD) que formó parte del Comité de Justicia Ambiental— aparecen en una fotografía tomada poco después de que el Pleno de la Asamblea aprobara la propuesta de desinversión categórica (ENV-02) durante la 226.ª Asamblea General en el 2024.

Ante la retirada del gobierno de EE. UU. de los Acuerdos de París de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC) y del proceso anual de la COPs, la creciente desacreditación de la ciencia climática y otras numerosas medidas, en el país comienzan a soplar vientos políticos de resistencia generalizada frente al negacionismo climático. Si bien la Iglesia lleva décadas reconociendo que el cambio climático es real y de origen humano, muchos están convencidos de que existe un «negacionismo de la urgencia» arraigado en el compromiso con un proceso de participación exasperantemente lento. Este sentimiento es especialmente fuerte entre los miembros más jóvenes. A principios del 2025, el Comité de Incidencia de PEC, con el apoyo del Comité Directivo de PEC, inició la organización de lo que pronto se denominaría *Creation Action Network of Presbyterian Young Adults* (CANOPY, o Red de Acción por la Creación de Jóvenes Adultos Presbiterianos), con el objetivo de dar a este sector de la membresía de la Iglesia una voz más fuerte en el debate sobre cómo abordar las cuestiones de justicia climática y ambiental. El equipo encargado de desarrollar la siguiente propuesta integró las tres vertientes de la iniciativa hasta la fecha: Pam McVety, del antiguo grupo «Fossil Free PCUSA» ; Fred Milligan, de PEC; y Drew Hill, de CANOPY.

Este equipo comenzó a celebrar consultas periódicas con el personal y la nueva dirección de MRTI, con el personal y los miembros de los Grupos de Incidencia y con miembros de ACSWP. Aunque dichas reuniones transcurrieron en un ambiente cordial, no había indicios del nivel de oposición —si es que la habría— que podrían encontrar luego en la Asamblea. El equipo siguió escuchando preocupaciones sobre la necesidad de que cualquier petición de desinversión a nivel sectorial (es decir, categórica) se planteara de manera que fuera «viable» para nuestros fiduciarios, quienes habían creado numerosas barreras para dicha implementación.

Para gran sorpresa de los defensores de la desinversión, ACSWP decidió una vez más recomendar la aprobación de las recomendaciones de desinversión contenidas en la propuesta. Además, presentan voluntariamente una declaración de principios matizada en forma del documento titulado «Intención, efecto y premura: orientación ética sobre los combustibles fósiles», en el que se aboga por el rápido retiro de las inversiones en combustibles fósiles. A diferencia de lo ocurrido en Asambleas Generales anteriores, ninguno de los grupos de defensa (*Advocacy Groups*) opta por presentar comentarios y, lo que quizá sea más importante, MRTI declara ante el comité de la asamblea, que la propuesta de desinversión no entra en conflicto con sus propias recomendaciones.

Tras introducirse solo un par de enmiendas menores y de carácter amistoso, la propuesta se aprueba por 50 votos a favor y 13 en contra; posteriormente, se incluye —junto con el resto de los asuntos del Comité de la Asamblea General, se llamen,Justicia climática y ambiental, (CLJ en Ingles,)— en la agenda de aprobación por consenso del Pleno, donde se ratifica mediante votación a viva voz durante la primera sesión de trabajo. Surge cierta inquietud por la tarde, antes de comenzar la sesión, cuando el *Presbyterian Peace Fellowship* (PPF) hace un llamado para rechazar el informe de MRTI; sin embargo, tras consultar a los líderes de PEC/CANOPY y de la PPF, y después de que la dirección de MRTI emitiera una declaración de apoyo a la propuesta y PEC/CANOPY garantizara su respaldo al informe de MRTI, la PPF retiró su petición. Y el resto, como suele decirse, es historia.

Queda por ver con qué rapidez actuarán nuestros fiduciarios. El procedimiento actual exige que MRTI investigue y presente la lista de empresas en la próxima asamblea, pero el calendario de la propuesta permite escalonar la desinversión a lo largo de cuatro años o más, tal como dicta la «responsabilidad fiduciaria». Afortunadamente, el comité modificó la propuesta para exigir que tanto MRTI como los fiduciarios, presenten informes en las dos próximas asambleas indicando el ritmo de los avances.

Queremos expresar nuestro agradecimiento especial a la *Presbyterian Peace Fellowship* por todo lo que ha aportado a esta iniciativa a lo largo de los años y hasta la más reciente Asamblea General, incluida la concesión del premio «Peaceseeker Award» de 2025 a PEC, por nuestra labor en materia de desinversión y por impulsar la creación de CANOPY.

A continuación, presentamos una «lista provisional» de las personas que han trabajado arduamente a lo largo de los años para promover la desinversión en combustibles fósiles dentro de la PCUSA. ¡Por favor, avísennos si falta alguien que debamos incluir!

A “Brief” History of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign in the PCUSA

 

by Fred Milligan

 2011 Following the Church of Sweden’s 2009 decision to begin divesting its fossil fuel stocks, U.S. climate activists and university students in West Virginia and elsewhere began to take notice. Bill McKibben’s 350.org group amplified these local actions by launching a nationwide divestment effort.

 2012 McKibben’s 21-stop Do The Math tour spans the country, calling on colleges, religious institutions, and pension funds to liquidate their fossil fuel stocks to stigmatize the industry and accelerate the transition to clean energy. Inspired by his Nov 10 stop in Palo Alto, First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto’s Cool Planet team begins drafting what becomes the first Presbyterian overture calling for categorical divestment from fossil fuels.

 2013 After learning about divestment at the Forward on Climate rally in February, Dan Terpstra and Wil Howie contact Rebecca Barnes of the Presbyterian Hunger Program, who connects them with Abby Mohaupt and the Palo Alto group. They, along with others, refine the draft overture and begin developing the national network that becomes Fossil Free PCUSA.

 2014 Presbytery of Boston and the newly formed Fossil Free PCUSA brought the first divestment overture, with a dozen concurrences, to that year’s General Assembly. It is referred by committee in a hotly contested 30-29 vote to MRTI for consideration through its normal processes of engagement. A minority report was presented to plenary by members of the committee and, after extended debate, was defeated in deference to the original committee referral.

Pictured:(left to right) Advocates for the 2014 Overture: Susan Chamberlain, Sue Smith, Dan Terpstra, Megan Gregory, abby mohaupt, Paul Henschen, Peter Anderson, Rob Mark, Pam McVety, Jacob Bolton

 2016 The Presbytery of San Francisco and FFPCUSA’s overture is brought to that G.A., along with 29 concurring presbyteries, and narrowly clears the committee by a vote of 31 to 25. In a minority report brought by MRTI, an alternative resolution is proposed and adopted by the assembly which defers to the “proven track record of MRTI’s engagement processes.” This is the year that PEC gave First Pres Palo Alto an award for divestment work.

 2018 Hudson River Presbytery and Fossil Free PCUSA (now receiving organizational support from Presbyterian Peace Fellowship) bring an overture to GA.supported by forty (40) presbyteries (the most ever for one overture). Although the G.A. committee approves an amended version of the overture, the plenary votes to replace it with a minority report backed by MRTI and the board of pensions, which eliminates the full divestment option. This alternative resolution is then amended to call for focused engagement and deadlines for action on five specific companies.

 2020 G.A. does not meet due to the COVID pandemic. However, in the lead-up to the 2020 General Assembly, Monmouth Presbytery and Fossil Free PCUSA organize the sponsorship and concurrence of thirty Presbyteries for their simply named “On Fossil Fuel Divestment” overture. Action on this overture is referred to the 2022 assembly.

 2022 MRTI brings five companies to G.A. for divestment, but the divestment overture referred from the 2020 assembly (ENV-07) fails once again to pass. Another small victory comes in the form of ACSWP’s Advice and Counsel Comment (originally submitted to the 2020 GA, along with their “Investing in a Green Future” statement), supporting passage of ENV-07 and the full divestment for which it calls. Their specific language is that passage of full fossil fuel divestment will represent . . . 

 “an ethical statement that as a Christian denomination we understand our calling from Genesis to care for creation. Investing in fossil fuels is an equity issue as well - pollution has a more detrimental effect on vulnerable and marginalized communities.” .  . . They continue, “Believing an economy is possible without fossil fuels can start with divesting from these companies that provide fossil fuels.”

 2022 proves to be a watershed moment in the divestment journey, with PEC authoring its first divestment overture and many previously involved with FFPCUSA stepping back from the struggle. However, neither the PEC-authored overture, sponsored by Susquehanna Valley Presbytery (ENV-08), nor (ENV-07) mentioned above, passed. Instead, the G.A. committee, with assistance from MRTI staff and board members and Board of Pensions Staff, combine elements of each of the divestment overtures into another measure, creating a general expression of concern for the environment and the usage of fossil fuels, saying . . .

  “We must continue towards a way of life divested from fossil fuels both monetarily and in our daily living.”

 2024 PEC had stepped up to leadership of the fossil fuel divestment effort in 2022 and engaged with full force in late 2023, writing and distributing yet another divestment overture for the 226th G.A. in Salt Lake City. With concurrences from seventeen Presbyteries there is once again significant support from across the church for the position being consistently argued since 2014 and echoed in the 2020/22 ACSWP comment cited above.

 However, ACSWP chooses to retreat from its 2020/22 support for divestment continued opposition from some advocacy groups, MRTI’s staff and Board members (who bring divestment recommendations for zero-fossil-fuel companies), the overture passed through the committee without amendment. This, alongside an MRTI report that has been amended, the committee moderators assure, sufficiently to remove any conflicts between the two items of business.

 When the measure comes before the Plenary business session it passes with a sizable majority of commissioners voting in favor. However, upon returning from lunch, the moderator of the Environmental Justice Committee informs the assembly that the overture they had passed in the morning is incommensurate with the version of the MRTI report that had been passed by the committee and that therefore more amendments are needed. During the resulting debate,  the divestment overture passed in the morning session is reconsidered and voted down in favor of an amendment to the MRTI report that adds ten fossil fuel companies for immediate divestment. A similar result to what had been achieved in 2018 except this time the decision was for immediate divestment, circumventing the engagement process. But once again, the push for full fossil fuel divestment is thwarted. This is the GA that called for a redo of the divestment criteria through a task force. The task force’s report in 2026 was passed unanimously and strengthens the policy's previously existing provision for categorical or "sector wide" divestment.

 

Pictured: PEC Advocacy Committee Co-facilitator and Overture Advocate, Rev. Fred Milligan and YAAD Drew Hill who had served on the Environmental Justice Committee in a photo taken shortly after the Assembly Plenary had passed the categorical divestment overture, ENV-02 at the 226th GA in 2024.

2026 With the U.S. government’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC Paris Accords and annual COP process, an increasing denigration of climate science, and numerous other measures, the political winds of widespread resistance to climate denialism are beginning to stir in the country. While the Church has, for decades, acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused, many are convinced that there is an “urgency denialism” embedded in the commitment to the excruciatingly slow engagement process. This is particularly felt among younger members. Beginning in early 2025, the PEC Advocacy Committee, with support from the PEC Steering Committee, had launched the organization of what would soon call itself the Creation Action Network of Presbyterian Young Adults (CANOPY), with the aim of providing this segment of the Church’s membership with a stronger voice in the conversation about how we address matters of Climate and Environmental Justice. The next overture development team included all three strands of the effort to date: Pam McVety from the former FFPCUSA group, Fred Milligan from PEC, and Drew Hill from CANOPY.

 This team began regular consultations with the staff and new leadership of MRTI, the staff and membership of the Advocacy Groups, and members of ACSWP. Although these meetings were congenial, there was no indication of what level of opposition, if any, might be encountered at the assembly. The team continued to hear concerns that any call for sector-level (i.e., categorical) divestment be approached in a way that would be “implementable” by our fiduciaries, who have created many barriers to such implementation.

 Much to the surprise of the divestment advocates, ACSWP once again chooses to recommend approval of the divestment recommendations in the overture. In addition, they offer, on their own volition, a nuanced policy statement in the form of the paper “Intent, Effect, Haste: Ethical Guidance on Fossil Fuels,” which argues for a rapid removal of investments in fossil fuels. In contrast with past G.A.s, none of the Advocacy Groups choose to write a comment, and perhaps most importantly, MRTI testifies before the committee that the divestment overture represents no conflict with their own recommendations.

 With only a couple of minor, friendly amendments, the overture passes on a 50-13 vote and is placed, along with all other items of CLJ business, on the Plenary’s Consent Agenda, where it passes by voice vote in the very first session of business. There is a bit of anxiety in the afternoon before the session begins when the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship issues a call for the MRTI report to be voted down, but after consultation between PEC/CANOPY and PPF leaders, and issuance of a statement of support for passage of the overture by MRTI’s leadership and assurance of PEC/CANOPY’s support for passage of MRTI’s report, the PPF call was withdrawn. And the rest, as the saying goes, history.

 It remains to be seen how quickly our fiduciaries will act. The current process requires MRTI to research and present the list of companies to the next assembly, but the overture timeline offers the possibility of spreading the divestment over four or more years, as required by “fiduciary responsibility.”

 Fortunately, the committee amended the overture to require reporting at the next two assemblies by MRTI and the fiduciaries to indicate the speed of progress.

 We want to especially offer a word of thanks to the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship for all they have contributed to this effort across the years and right through the most recent General Assembly including their presentation of the 2025 “Peaceseeker Award” to PEC for our work on Divestment and initiating the organization of CANOPY.

Here is a "working list" of those who have worked hard to help promote PCUSA fossil fuel divestment over the years. Please let us know if there is anyone else we should add!

 

Rev. Fred Milligan, H.R. is the Co-Facilitator for PEC's Advocacy Committee. He has been involved with PEC since 2005 when he served on the General Assembly staff as Associate for Stewardship Education and supported the start-up of the Eco-Stewards program.

Planting Charity and Growing Justice

 

by Derrick Weston

 In 2019, while I was living in Baltimore, I worked with HopeSprings, a ministry that equipped congregations to work with people living with HIV. Part of the work involved partnering to provide healthy meals to folks living with the illness. As a gardening enthusiast, I proposed shortening the food distribution chain by growing some of what we provided to our clients. One of our partner congregations told us about a community garden that might suit our needs. The Rockrose garden had been planted over a former quarry (“rock rows”) and became a place where community members could adopt a plot and grow their own food. A sizeable portion of the area was designated as the “charity garden,” and I was given access to begin pursuing my wildest urban farm dreams. That was in the winter of 2019.

 The pandemic hit just as I was beginning to plan for spring planting. The garden hadn’t been tended for some time. It was very overgrown, with some of the most stubborn weeds I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, I was on a deadline. The woman who used to tend the space moved to Florida, but she still wanted to stay involved. Her plan was to start dozens and dozens of sweet potato slips, which she would then ship from Florida to Baltimore. From there, it would be a mad dash to get them into the ground before they wilted or rotted. Hindsight being what it is, I now realize this was insane. But after a few weeks of being cooped up indoors, weeding a half-acre by hand and rushing to get a plant I was unfamiliar with in the dirt felt like an escape.

 By the grace of God, one church showed up for me in a big way. I was friends with a woman who, at the time, was the associate pastor of Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church. She mobilized a group of volunteers who were as stir-crazy as I was in the early COVID period. Every day, a new bunch of volunteers of all ages showed up to weed and mow the area. When the sweet potato slips finally arrived, we raced the clock together to get them into the ground. We lost some to rot, but the overwhelming majority of the tiny plants weathered their interstate trek, none the worse for wear.

 We rejoiced on the day we planted the last sweet potato, then realized we still had plenty of space to play with, “play” being the operative word here. There was no blueprint to follow. We began imagining what the space could become. We planted greens, squash, tomatoes, and carrots. We began cleaning out an abandoned hoop house, already dreaming about the next season. We planted pollinators along the fenceline. As the months passed, we connected with other organizations addressing the spike in hunger caused by the pandemic and started donating what we grew. We worked with Govans Presbyterian Church to provide produce for their weekly meal, which opened its doors to all in the community.

 Largely through the efforts of a volunteer named McKay Jenkins, the space took on a life of its own. We maintained a regular rotation of volunteers, and we also hosted classrooms and community groups seeking ways to contribute during that uncertain season. We invited congregations not only to volunteer but also to worship in the space. Something had shifted for us, and the space became holy ground. We were never happy with the “charity garden” label. By the next year, McKay began referring to it as the Rockrose Food Justice Project.

 Six years later, the space still provides food and educational experiences, but it also offers something more. Tucked away in what feels like an urban oasis, where you are surrounded by trees yet can still hear the interstate, the former quarry provides a sense of community and purpose. You feel it as you enter, a sense that a small part of God’s dream for humans and Creation is coming true. Certainly there are struggles: being dependent on the city for water during dry seasons, rising urban temperatures that have already shifted our growing windows in this short time, and figuring out exactly how to co-exist with groundhogs who think we’re planting just for them. Despite all of that, it is a space where I feel most like myself. In Genesis 2, God charges the human formed from the earth to give back to the earth from which he came. I’ve never felt more connected to that mandate than in our little slice of urban agrarianism.

 

Derrick Weston is the director of theological education and formation at Creation Justice Ministries and a steering committee member of Presbyterians for Earth Care living near Pittsburgh, PA.

The House That Lives: Lessons from an Alaskan Bioshelter

 

Several PEC members toured the Yukon from Fairbanks to Anchorage, led by Rev. Curtis Karns, EP of Yukon Presbytery, and his amazing crew from the Presbytery.

The tour included Curt and Cindee’s amazing and one-of-a-kind, home which they had designed.  (They have since moved, but I am grateful for their hospitality and continued ministry in both social and environmental justice.). Curt was a previous member of the Steering Committee of PEC.  PEC continues to appreciate their work greatly. 

Most people think of a house as a shelter—a place that protects us from the weather while consuming water, energy, and other resources. But tucked into the hillside of Eagle River, Alaska, stands a home that turns that idea upside down. Known as EcoEscape, this remarkable bioshelter was designed to function as a living organism, collecting its own water, recycling its own waste, growing food, and working with nature rather than against it.

Built in the early 1980s by Bob Crosby, EcoEscape began as an experiment. At the time, many rural Alaskan communities lacked modern water and sewer systems. Residents often carried water from lakes or rivers and disposed of waste in so-called “honey buckets.” Installing conventional infrastructure in remote areas was—and remains—staggeringly expensive because of permafrost, rugged terrain, and small populations. In some villages, the cost of installing a modern sewer system has exceeded $50,000 per household toilet. Crosby believed there had to be a better way. Using mostly off-the-shelf materials available from ordinary hardware stores, he created a home-scale water and waste management system for a fraction of that cost.

Years later, Curt and Cindee Karns discovered the unusual house while searching online for environmentally friendly homes. Purchasing it proved difficult because it lacked both a conventional well and septic system, making lenders reluctant to finance it. After successfully persuading the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to approve a mortgage, they moved into the home in 2008 and continued its mission as a place for education, tours, and environmental workshops.

What makes EcoEscape extraordinary is not exotic building materials or futuristic technology. The house itself is surprisingly conventional. Its walls are wood-framed with standard insulation, its windows are double-paned, and most of its fixtures are familiar to any homeowner. The innovation lies in how the home’s systems work together.

The Karns often described the bioshelter as if it were a living creature. “The house breathes, drinks, digests, and, since we can’t process urine, it pees,” Cindee explained. That simple description captures the philosophy behind the design: every output becomes an input for another part of the system.

Instead of relying on a well, EcoEscape collects rainwater and snowmelt from its roof. Two 5,000-gallon cisterns store the water, one inside the house and another nearby. The primary cistern is more than a storage tank. Filled with gravel, aquatic plants, and koi, it functions as a miniature ecosystem. Fish waste nourishes the plants, while the plants help clean the water. The koi also serve as an early warning system. If someone accidentally introduces a harmful chemical into the water, the fish are the first to react, alerting the homeowners before serious damage occurs. After passing through standard sediment and carbon filters, the water is clean enough for drinking.

Water is only borrowed, never wasted. Water from sinks, showers, and laundry flows through settling tanks populated by beneficial aerobic bacteria that naturally break down contaminants. After several days of treatment, ultraviolet light disinfects the water before it is safely returned to the environment. The system requires only modest maintenance, and its components are readily available from local hardware stores.

Even human waste becomes a resource. Composting toilets send waste into rotating drums where bacteria and red wiggler worms slowly convert it into compost. After nearly two years of decomposition and additional outdoor curing, the material becomes fertile soil that nourishes gardens both inside and outside the home. Kitchen scraps join the same cycle, creating a nearly closed-loop system in which very little is discarded.

The bioshelter also makes excellent use of Alaska’s limited sunlight. Its south-facing glass solarium captures solar energy throughout the day, warming the space while providing an ideal environment for plants. Warm air is circulated throughout the house using a heat recovery ventilation system, reducing the need for supplemental heating. A masonry fireplace provides additional warmth during the coldest weather, while a backup natural gas furnace is used primarily for hot water. Even in winter, the heat stored in the home’s large water cistern helps keep the solarium warm enough for both plants and fish to survive.

When the Karns purchased the property, they expanded its environmental mission by introducing permaculture principles. They added rooftop gardens, planted fruit trees, and began constructing a greenhouse using natural building materials. Their goal was to demonstrate not only sustainable living, but also sustainable food production in one of North America’s most challenging climates.

Yet perhaps the most valuable lesson of EcoEscape is not technological at all.

In a later reflection written after they left the home, Curt and Cindee acknowledged that despite 15 years of living lightly on the planet, hosting tours, teaching classes, and inspiring thousands of visitors, global environmental problems have continued to worsen. They wondered whether their efforts had made any difference.

Their answer was both humble and hopeful: perhaps they planted a seed.

That may be the true legacy of EcoEscape. Its greatest achievement is not simply demonstrating that a house can recycle water, compost waste, or grow food. It shows that sustainable living is possible using practical, understandable systems rather than expensive, high-tech solutions. While no single home can solve climate change, each one can become an example that inspires others to rethink how they live.

As communities everywhere search for ways to conserve water, reduce waste, and build resilience in a changing climate, the lessons from this remarkable Alaskan bioshelter remain as relevant today as they were more than forty years ago. Sometimes the most powerful environmental innovations are not the largest or most expensive. Sometimes they begin with a single house—and the people willing to imagine that it could live as gently on the Earth as the ecosystem surrounding it.

ADDENDUM to the Bioshelter story 

 

In reality, there were 31 steps to arrive at the front door of our mountain home and we weren’t getitng any younger. We chose to move back home to Fairbanks in retirement where  all of our siblings/parents live. Since moving back and leaving the bioshelter to new  caretakers/owners who have not kept up with all of the bioshelter’s systems, Curt and I have  returned to a regular American lifestyle. We moved into a log house heated by fossil fuel  (propane and oil). We have three flush toilets and we recycle the best that we can just like  everyone else. For 15 years we lived lightly on the planet, we invited countless people into our  home to see it, we had students from all over the country see it via zoom, built a straw/clay  greenhouse heated with a rocket stove as well as an attached sauna built from cord wood. As  the tours came through people would oohh and ahhhh and talk about how very cool it was  and how they wished they had that house. We learned and taught permaculture, taught classes, engaged  groups, pushed a no-waste lifestyles. And with all of that, not much has changed as a result of  living in our living house. The country and world’s population continues to rise, the country’s leaders won’t change our trajectory, the pollution continues to worsen, everything is melting and warming faster  than ever. 

 

In reality all we can hope is that we planted a small seed somewhere. We shake our heads and  can’t believe that humanity is very similar to the reindeer on St. Mathhew’s island, who left to  their own devices, ate all the food on the island and starved to death. Or the man who sat on  his roof and prayed for God to help him in the flood while he waved off the rescue boat and  the rescue helicopters, being so sure that “God will save me.” But when he got to heaven and  asked God why God didn’t save him, God said, “I sent boats and helicopters, what did you  want God tells us almost daily of the plight of the planet in different ways, yet we don’t  heed the warnings. We don’t curb our appetites. We consume. But we know it does not have  to be that way. 

 

**Curt continues to work on Citizen’s Climate Lobby and Cindee is working on Alaska’s Food  Security, both gearing up for the stresses: fires, storms, floods, etc. that are sure to come. 

Camille Dungy, Soil: The Story of a Black Mother’s Garden

 

Book Review by Courtenay Willcox

There are many ways to look at Camille Dungy’s book, Soil: The Story of a Black Mother’s Garden. You can look at it from the dirt, from her family: a Black family in a mostly white Midwestern town, from the people she encounters because of her gardens, from her writing and its process, from the specific plants she puts into the garden, from bunnies (you have to read the book), and from racism (again, you have to read the book). I was glad to take time to walk through Camille’s gardens, especially her last one. It gives me some hope for mine, which can seem weed-ridden and not nearly enough to fulfill my vision of a riot of color.

For the author, the diversity of her garden is a mirror held up to her community in Fort Collins, CO. She writes in 20-minute daily chunks about how diversity in a garden, in the larger world, and around issues of race and class yields the most robust product, garden, world, and human community. Diversity results in the most long-lasting, robust, strong product that is always in process and never finished.

Her words paint pictures as she writes about her seven-year endeavor to transform her iconic suburban lawn into a diverse, drought-resistant, pollinator's paradise. She brings together horticulture and environmental justice while weaving in race, motherhood, and the exclusion of Black voices from nature writing. The diversity of her garden, the diversity of race, and the diversity of creation are her medium, drawn from the soil and offering the most hope and promise as she and we all work to till and keep our creation.

This is worth your time. After you read it, be prepared to step outside into the dirt to plant or revise your garden, getting rid of some of your lawn in the process.

Courtenay Willcox is a transitional pastor at Northampton Presbyterian Church, Moderator of Presbyterians for Earth Care, and a very grateful Gigi to three remarkable granddaughters.

Regenerating the Soil, Renewing Creation

 

by Jim Turner

The Old Testament teaches us that our fundamental duty is to care for the poor, andJesus taught us to honor the communal table. But how are we to do this when the soils of the Earth are losing the capability to feed us adequately? We have been mistreating them by excessive use of tillage,  chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. This has left many fields vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and drought, and has gradually weakened the soil life that makes crop production possible.

Ray Archuleta, of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, travels to teach farmers about the need to nurture soils and how to do it. He instructs them to: “cover the soil with a living plant at all times, don’t till, use sprays extremely sparingly if at all, get ruminants and their manure onto the land, rotate crops, and always be a student of your soil’s health.”^[1]

While he works steadily at this, he is at times pessimistic, saying, “I really believe humans don’t learn something until they go through a trial, until it gets so bad something has to happen. This is a moral issue. This is a spiritual issue . . . “

Sharing Ray’s view that the soil care regime is a moral and spiritual issue, Presbyterians for Earth Care is sponsoring an Overture called “On the Importance of Regenerative Farming Practices in Caring for Creation,” which has been submitted to the PCUSA’s 2026 General Assembly. This Overture calls Presbyterians to learn about and support regenerative farming practices.

This comes in a year when farmers all over the world are indeed going through a trial. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says that American farmers obtain almost all our needed phosphate fertilizer and urea from other nations (urea is a building block of nitrogen fertilizer). “Up to 30 percent of the global fertilizer trade passes through the Persian Gulf,” so blockage of the Strait of Hormuz has caused interruptions in supply chains that will take months to untangle.^[2] The resulting increases in fertilizer costs will be difficult for farmers to absorb and will lead to higher food prices for consumers. Many farmers in a recent survey said they will forgo applying fertilizer this spring, hoping prices will return to an affordable level later in the growing season.^[3]

In this year of trial, farmers may be eager to grow cover crops such as clover, which capture nitrogen from the air on their roots. And with a rotation of three or more crop species, they can reduce the occurrence of weeds and insects that require expensive amounts of chemical pesticides. By spreading compost inoculated with spores of beneficial fungi, they can increase the organic matter in the soil, enabling bacteria and other organisms to help green plants thrive.

Farmers are facing the challenge of adapting their farming practices; the rest of us can stand in fellowship with them by adjusting our eating habits to support regeneratively grown crops. We can also be in solidarity with them and with creation by maintaining our gardens and yards in an ecologically sustainable way.

When we reduce our intake of ultra-processed foods and allocate some money and time to buy fruits and vegetables from farmers’ markets and CSAs, we help reduce the demand for corn and soybeans that are predominantly raised with soil-destructive methods. And we increase the demand for food raised in soil that provides more nutrition.^[4] Also, we can stop spraying chemicals on our lawns to nurture monoculture grasses and spend some time nurturing native plants that provide food and habitat for pollinators, lightning bugs, and birds.^[5] 

How can we motivate ourselves? Just as votes can accumulate to elect wise leaders, so too can our individual efforts result in cities with less-destructive water runoff. Cumulative impacts can affect patterns of demand for what farmers raise. Our efforts amplify what regenerative farmers are doing and encourage more of it.

Furthermore, these collective efforts will help restore creation. Regenerated soil can sequester more carbon by increasing the microbiota. Soil acquires a better texture that absorbs rainfall, reducing destructive runoff and holding water for timely use by plants. Healthy soils absorb less heat, so there’s less rising heat to push rain clouds away.

Farmers who need fewer expensive inputs have a better chance of remaining profitable and staying on the land. This increases social stability, especially as Artificial Intelligence threatens an increasing number of jobs.^[6]

The advent of AI-enabled machinery, such as driverless tractors, further threatens the vitality of rural communities. Only large, well-capitalized farms can afford to obtain the efficiencies that AI proponents tout. AI-guided equipment can now zap weeds, and while this reduces the need for soil-harming herbicides, it is another expensive input. But with mulch from cover crops and crop rotations, a farmer can suppress weeds with far less expense.

The Farm Bill and other decisions at the USDA will determine whether the largest and richest farmers or smaller-scale family farmers are supported. You and I can watch for opportunities to comment on USDA and congressional actions and stay informed through organizations such as the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and Farm Action. Communicating about these important issues is critical.

The Regenerative Farming Overture is a first step toward educating one another about these issues and taking action to defend our precious soil.

Jim Turner chairs the Earth Care Team of Westport Presbyterian Church in Kansas City MO, which is certified as an Earth Care Congregation, and participates in the Heartland Presbytery’s Earthkeepers Committee. He is a retired business law professor who grew up on a farm and has been studying current agriculture matters for the past five years.

---

[1] Josh Tickell, Kiss the Ground: How the Food You Eat Can Reverse Climate Change, Heal Your Body & Ultimately Save Our World, (Enliven Books, 2018), Chapter 7.

[2] Raj Patel, “The Strait We’re In”, Civil Eats, March 18, 2026, https://newsletter.rajpatel.org/p/the-strait-were-

In

[3] Most farmers can’t afford fertilizer, new Farm Bureau survey shows”, (Apr. 14, 2026),  https://www.agdaily.com/news/most-farmers-cant-afford-fertilizer-farm-bureau-survey-shows/

[4] David Montgomery & Anne Biklé, What Your Food Ate: How to Heal our Land and Reclaim our Health

(Norton,2022). P. 141.

[5] Cassidy Klein, “A Catholic case against lawns: Catholic social teaching offers a framework for rethinking the use of

outdoor space to nurture the shared flourishing of all creation”, (April 7, 2026),

https://uscatholic.org/articles/202604/a-catholic-case-against-lawns/

[6] Josh Tyrangiel, “What’s the Worst That Could Happen? AI and the future of work”, The Atlantic, Mar. 2026, p. 18.