Earth Day in Ascendancy

A banner hanging outside the Washington Friends Meeting House asks the passer-by what they do to help stop war. The beauty of the question is that without judgment or blame the reader is challenged in their own mind to simply ponder. If one picks up this query it is hard not to then ask one-self, “is it enough?” For people of conscience this can be one of the most grave and difficult questions. Can you ever do enough to stand against war or injustice? I used to ask myself this question with regard to protecting the environment, and caused myself stress answering each time – NO! But good God, what is enough? If I sacrificed myself would that ultimate act be enough? I had to conclude that I was not able to "protect the environment" – not alone.

If one person stops driving, installs solar panels, composts their garbage and puts up a sign in the front yard the effect on the global environment is negligible, but they may feel like their doing all they can. If their example inspires others, their efforts are multiplied; and if they are part of a social change movement their efforts can be measurable. You’ll drive yourself crazy trying to figure out where you are on this continuum, but even then you can’t really say if it’s enough. After 20 years I stopped asking “is it enough?” I acknowledged there is a certain arrogance in thinking that your own efforts, however valiant, could ever be enough for the world – your family and friends, yes; but the world?

I satisfy myself knowing that I understand the problem and I’m part of the solution. My personal decisions satisfy my need to walk my talk, and of course I talk – and write. But I see my actions in some part as conditional on those choices that are enabled by society for the public broadly. While it may be tempting to make your own choices the gold standard against which you judge others' action; it’s not reasonable to expect everyone around you to have the same resources or to make the same sacrifice you will to ensure clean water or healthy air. People have to be free to make their own choices; but society has to provide reasonable options for people.

Take for example the consumption of electricity generated from coal. Fossil fuels, particularly coal, powered the industrial age that transformed the struggle to survive into the consumption of convenience for the masses in the West. Today, we seem prepared as a society to say that the global-warming down-side of coal combustion for energy eclipses the tendered energy upside. Personally, I pay about a 30% premium for "wind power," that is actually nothing more than paying for an energy credit that helps to support investment in wind energy. I still use the same power from the grid that everyone else does around here - about 40% coal powered. I feel virtuous, but I know that my paltry payments for renewable energy credits is not going to actually make a lot of difference.

On the social scale, however, something else is going on. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) notes that there were 151 coal-fired power plants in various stages of planning and licensing at the beginning of 2007. By the end of 2007, 59 of them had been canceled. That happened before millions of people joined together though the Earth Day Network this past April 22nd to say “No Coal.” The Earth Day Network reports that: “Thanks to you, Earth Day 2008 was the biggest yet! From Tokyo to Togo, to our flagship event on the National Mall in Washington, DC and 7 other U.S. cities, we galvanized millions of people around the world behind a Call for Climate, our global warming action theme. Hundreds of millions of people from every corner of the planet raised their voices to urge significant and equitable action on climate change.” To put a point on it, the Network is advancing an immediate ‘Moratorium on Coal’ - a halt to the construction of any new conventional coal-fired power plants.

There is a substantial effort on the part of many people to address the mindless continuation of investment in old energy that contributes to the problem of global warming. Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sibelius (D), vetoed a bill that would have led to an additional two coal-fired utilities. She said in making the case against coal: “This decision not only preserves Kansans’ health and upholds our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land, but will also enhance our prospects for strong and sustainable economic growth throughout our state. Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives." With these two most recent Kansas plants put on hold, the number of anti-coal victories is now up to 63 of the 151 proposed.

Students rallied in opposition to a proposed Wise County, VA coal-fired power plant, and delivered to Thomas Farrell, CEO of Dominion Energy, an award for being the biggest Fossil Fool in Virginia. That power plant is still on track having recently won support from the Governor of Virginia. In Congress, Representative Markey of Massachusetts (D) subpoenaed the CEOs of the 5 largest oil companies to testify in his Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming with the invitation: "Look Americans in the face and tell them why they can’t support new solutions."

These are actions, supported by broad collective political will, that are helping to change the options available to citizens; making it possible for people to make environmentally sound choices. Disconnecting from the power grid is not an option for most people, but greening the grid is something that we can collectively choose to do and then all benefit from. Stopping coal is a good first step, but replacing it is another matter all together - for another post, another time.