Archive for the ‘Current Affairs’ Category

Church ladies fight strip mining instead of strip clubs

April 5, 2010

In Tennessee, legislators are used to seeing church ladies with a range of traditional social concerns. Recently they’ve discovered a new set. The women of LEAF (the Lindquist Environmental Appalachian Fellowship)  are among the most informed and eloquent advocates fighting the most destructive form of coal mining threatening eastern Tennessee, mountaintop removal mining (or MTR). Their deep faith, reasonable theology, and encyclopedic knowledge of the dangers of mountaintop removal mining has begun to earn them a reputation in Nashville, as recounted in this recent story from The Tennessean.

I’ve met Pat Chastain and Pat Hudson several times now (and look forward to meeting Dawn Coppock). I wish that every environmental advocate could take lessons from their gracious demeanor and their sacrificial determination to see justice done for the people Appalachia. Learn from them. Pray for them. Support them!

EPA proposes landmark veto of mountaintop removal mining permit

March 30, 2010
Mountaintop Removal Mining

Mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia (John Paget | PagetFilms.com).

In what is regarded by many as a sea change for the most reckless and destructive form of coal mining, mountaintop removal, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday issued a proposal to veto a large-scale mining permit already approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Washington Post; New York Times)

Arch Coal Inc.’s Spruce No. 1 mine would degrade surrounding water quality, fill more than 7 miles of headwater streams and affect more than 2,000 acres of forest, EPA said.

That would be really bad for the people who get their drinking water from those mountains. Never mind the violence done to some of the oldest and most beautiful mountains in America.

The Clean Water Act grants EPA authority to veto Corps-issued permits for surface mines on environmental grounds, but it has only used that authority 12 times since 1972. Never before has the agency vetoed an already-issued permit.

An EPA willing to flex its muscles on behalf of poor mountaineers whose livelihoods are being destroyed by mountaintop removal mining is a significant change from recent policy. “The EPA is showing signs of backbone on this issue,” says Rob Perks of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The agency has already acknowledged the science confirming that this extreme form of strip mining is incompatible with environmental protection.”

Peter Illyn, of the Christian environmental group Restoring Eden, says, “It’s about time. There’s no moral, ecological, or economic justification for the damage that mountaintop removal  does to the people, to the water, and to the ecosystems of Appalachia.” Illyn’s group works with local partners in Appalachia to bring Christian leaders and college students to the region. “I’ve seen some of the most broken places on the globe, but I’ve never seen such egregious damage done in the name of cheap energy.”

Other signs also suggest that Big Coal’s days raping and pillaging the Appalachian Mountains may be numbered.

Fewer and fewer people are actually employed in mining coal in the Appalachians, as Big Coal has moved from underground mining to blasting the tops off mountains. The new hyper-violent strategy is cheaper, and employs a lot fewer people (some coal companies have laid off 90% of their workers). Coal’s constituency is being reduced to the barons who use profits to buy influence but don’t create jobs. More and more former miners are realizing the loss of their natural heritage. “The descendants of coal miners who live in the hollows and valleys believe that Appalachia can be saved,” says Allen Johnson of the West Virginia based advocacy group Christians for the Mountains.

A recent study from West Virginia University indicates that for every dollar of benefit coal mining produces, there are five dollars of health care costs borne by innocent bystanders. If coal companies weren’t able to offload their costs on third parties, mountaintop removal mining wouldn’t exist.

And David Roberts from Grist comments that even long-time coal defender Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has shown little desire to defend the practice of obliterating his home state. (West Virginia’s junior senator, Jay Rockefeller, and much of their Congressional delegation, don’t seem to be similarly enlightened.)

We could get rid of mountaintop removal mining with a negligible effect on energy prices, since only 5% of the nation’s electricity comes from such intemperate practices. The temptation will be to try to tinker at the margins of current technologies. Such an attempt will be misguided, according to Perks of the NRDC. “What EPA needs to do now is finally recognize that when it comes to this practice, there’s no way to mitigate the damage by tweaking the regulations.  You can’t mend mountaintop removal, you have to end it.”

Further resources:

Restoring Eden | Mountaintop Removal Campaign

Christians for the Mountains

NRDC “No More Mountaintop Removal Mining”

LEAF (Tennessee-based Christian advocates against MTR)

How front porches encourage loitering (aka “community”)

February 22, 2010

If you walk or bike or drive from Downtown Atlanta to Stone Mountain, your transect encompasses an architectural spectrum that tracks the twentieth century. Close to downtown is the King District and Cabbagetown, shotgun houses each with its own front porch, in easy speaking distance of passers-by on the sidewalk, or even front porch sitters across the street. People walk, and see each other walk, and get to know each other, and have encounters that are at just the right level of intimacy to foster engagement. The built environment creates the opportunity for community-building. A visitor unused to seeing foot traffic on the street would think there’s a lot of loitering going on.

Further on, the front porch reaches its pinnacle of development in 1920s and 30s Craftsman bungalows. Then a diminishment sets in, as porch sizes are reduced, and they migrate to the sides of houses, while the front element is reduced to a mere stoop, sometimes with awning, sometimes without. Eventually there is no porch, no stoop–the only thing facing the street is the automatically-controlled door to a 2, 3, or 4 car garage. Life happens on the back deck. There is no loitering, and walkers may be looked on with suspicion.

Kendra Juskus writes this month, on the Flourish weblog, about front porch culture and African history , in honor of Black History Month. It’s a fascinating piece, in which she explores why front porches act as bridges between public and private spaces, and how that builds community. My family’s own experience in urban Atlanta was to discover how in an older African American neighborhood, life still happens on the street side of the house. People tend to sit out front, to barbecue out front, and to live life in closer proximity to neighbors than in the housing districts that emphasize private spaces.

In related pieces this month, we explore how churches can begin to re-inhabit their neighborhoods and communities by allowing the “front porch mentality” to influence their architecture, landscaping, event planning. Churches have in many cases allowed their facilities to become semi-private spaces that are more like private clubs than public buildings, and how we might overcome that, through thoughtful changes to the built environment, in the way we welcome walkers, bicyclists, and in the way gardening accomplishes community-building.

Public spaces are endangered in modern American landscapes, and our politics and community-mindedness suffer as a result. When you have to buy a ticket or a coffee or a beer to encounter other people in neutral spaces, you lose some folks. How do we encourage spiritual loitering in a rat-race world?

Do you have ideas about how to retrofit our landscapes and lives to foster a front-porch culture? Write us (rusty@flourishonline.org). We’re happy to receive feedback and would love to share your ideas with others.

Interview: Climatologist weighs in on groundhog science

February 2, 2010
Katharine Hayhoe

Katharine Hayhoe

Katharine Hayhoe is a respected climatologist and professor in geosciences at Texas Tech University. Katharine’s work has resulted in over 40 peer-reviewed publications and many key reports. From 2008 to 2009, she served as a lead author on the federal report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” a report commissioned by the Bush administration and released under the Obama administration.

Most recently, she worked with her husband, Andrew Farley (author, professor and pastor), to write A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, a book that untangles the complex science and tackles many long-held misconceptions about global warming.

I asked Katharine to comment on the main atmospheric science question unfolding today, a topic she fails to address in the book.

Rusty Pritchard: Today is Groundhog Day, and all over the country expert rodents are being looked to for predictions about spring. This year, a prominent expert in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania has predicted six more weeks of winter. Your reaction? (more…)

Walkability, Justice, and Healthy Cities

January 27, 2010
No Pedestrian street sign

Sorry, we didn't build this place for you.

What’s the greatest threat to our planet? That’s the question that animates the short film Built to Last, which won top honors from the Congress for New Urbanism over the summer. You’ll have to watch it on YouTube to find out the answer.

But here’s a hint: it has to do with how we build our cities. We have for several generations built our most significant places on the cheap: homes, office buildings, churches, libraries and the infrastructure that connects them, all built on the low bid. The chief driving forces governing the character of our cities have been cheap energy and cheap ideas.

Cheap energy has primarily revealed itself in our transportation system, which evolved around low-price gasoline. Cheap ideas have been revealed in our corporate neglect of healthy design and healthy places. City planners, zoning officials, county commissioners all over the nation have allowed a landscape to evolve in which they don’t expect anyone to walk anywhere, ever.

Living our lives in the automobile has profound effects on our psyche and our political behavior, but the main impacts (literally) are on our bodies. The number one leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of one and twenty-four is car crashes. Automobiles, as a cause of death, have leap-frogged over every other source of child mortality, including birth defects, other kinds of accidents, cancer, and homicide.

Danger from automobiles can’t be escaped simply by avoiding cars. Because planners rarely “complete the street” by creating a transportation infrastructure that works for walkers, moms with strollers, bikers, cars, and public transport, pedestrian fatalities are high and rising. And there’s a racial disparity in the experience of death by car: Ethnic minorities and recent immigrants are more likely to be traveling on foot, and because they are trying to navigate environments that exclude walkers, they are many times more likely to be killed by cars than are white citizens.

Trying to live life without a car in an environment built mainly for automobiles has profound effects on the sense of social inclusion. The indignity of being a pedestrian is felt regularly by the poor and by ethnic minorities, and is felt only occasionally by affluent elites (who may encounter traffic on foot only while waiting for a car repair and looking for a coffee shop). I know mothers in my own neighborhood whose engagement with the outside world comes to a near halt when they give birth–instead of trying to battle traffic without sidewalks and safe crosswalks while pushing a stroller, they retreat to a world of television, cell phones, and indoor living.

The effect of the built environment on our bodies is not just felt through violent encounters with cars. Because we have created so many unwalkable, unlivable communities, Americans of all ages have grown heavier by degrees in the last 40 years. We are trained by the diet and exercise industries to think of the obesity epidemic as the result of individual gluttony or sloth, or to excuse it as a genetic predisposition. But America’s obesity problem will not be cured by diet or gym membership: the real problem is a lack of healthy environments that promote routine physical activity—walking as a way of life.

The body politic has also been harmed by our penchant for building environments for cars instead of people. A study last year from the Corporation for National and Community Service called “Volunteering in America” shows that in places where commuting times are burdensome, volunteerism takes a hit. There is only so much time  in the day– after fighting traffic for hours, one is little inclined to head back out to sort clothes or cook food at the rescue mission.

What is more worrying is the suggestion that long hours spent commuting works a change on our psyche. While you might think all those solitary hours in the car would make you crave social interaction, in fact the opposite appears to be true. According to the volunteering study “driving back and forth to work alone provides few opportunities to engage others and to build a positive social network.” And when people don’t spend time interacting with others, they begin to lose both the knack and desire for community-mindedness (part of what scientists have described as social capital).

I don’t know if that’s true, but I can’t help feeling a little disinclined to “love my neighbor as myself” after spending time on Atlanta’s downtown connector. Sociologist Robert Putnam calculates that for every additional 10 minutes of commute time in the car, there is a ten percent decline in social capital.

Not many of us living in the matrix can simply give up our cars. But faithful communities serving the poor are beginning to ask questions about our responsibility not just to green our lives and our houses, but also to create healthy places that foster community and justice, beachheads of livability and vitality that can begin to spread across the city landscape.

Flourish, my organization, has created a list of resources for learning more about the built environment, and what churches can do to make a difference.

A version of this article appeared in the January/February 2010 issue of PRISM magazine.

Climate scientists, skeptics earn a “great big time out”

December 9, 2009

That's a time out for you, young man

By now you’re bound to have heard of the great “Climategate” scandal of late 2009. Hackers broke into the computer archives of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and stole data and email archives dating back 10 years. Then, somehow (who can say?) these files found their way into the hands of climate uber-skeptics. It was discovered that–shock, horror–climate scientists were saying rude and very unscientific things about their most relentless critics. (A good synopsis and discussion, written by someone outside the conflict, is the one by Peter Kelemen at Columbia University.)

Now, to put things in context, you should know something about my two boys, ages 7 and 9. Although they get on fine most of the time, and even like each other, there is some sibling rivalry. (more…)

Woe to the Label Makers

December 8, 2009

Guest post by Thomas D. Rowley of A Rocha USA. [Tom is a friend and colleague, and if you don't knwo about the work of A Rocha, you should.--RP]

When I was a kid, my mother—queen of catalog shopping—bought a hand-held, squeeze-trigger device with a dial on top. It being the early seventies and I being a TV-addicted adolescent boy, my recognition of the contraption was instant: Star Trek Phaser!

Instant, but wrong.

It was, alas, a label maker—one of those things with which you squeezed out letter by raised letter on thin plastic tape such useful identifiers as “wedding photos,” “washers,” and “underwear.” And though useless against such menaces as the dreaded Salt Vampire of planet M-113, it was for a while fun. Soon every box, drawer and cabinet in our house had a label stuck on it. Now, the theory went, everything had a place. Everything could be stowed properly, found easily and used efficiently. Life under control.

Or not.

It turned out that wedding photos also contained grandparents, aunts and uncles. Should they be filed under “relatives” instead? Washers come in several kinds: flat, lock, and rubber to name a few. Could one box hold them all? (At least we got the underwear right.) Labels, it turns out, are tricky business.

Especially when slapped on people. Take me, for example. (more…)

The Best Climate Book Yet

December 2, 2009

Well the Copenhagen talks are upon us, and expectations are being played down for what can be accomplished. Even more notable is recent data that shows public enthusiasm on global warming has cooled significantly, indicating that the skeptics are right about one thing: much of the recent attention has been driven by media hype, not by informed concern. That doesn’t change our obligation to learn or to act on what we know. Whatever policies we enact on climate change will need to be sustained for decades, if not centuries, and will have to endure many changes of ruling political parties, so it is worth continuing to work on a public consensus. So why not start with some Christmas reading?! (more…)

Overpopulation: The environmental problem that isn’t

November 16, 2009

Add to: Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

In an opinion leader and an associated issue briefing, the Economist newsmagazine last week (Oct 29 issue) reported on the worldwide decline in fertility rates, which mollify concerns about how to address the “overpopulation” of the planet. (The “fertility rate” is a technical term from demography–how many children a woman has during her lifetime.) In the undergraduate teaching program in Environmental Studies I helped found in 1999 at Emory University, I would survey incoming freshman on what they thought the world’s most pressing environmental issues were. Nearly always, they expressed grave concerns about “overpopulation”, by which they mostly meant population growth in less developed countries. Never mind that the United States and other first world nations consume far more than their share per capita of the world’s resources–these students were worried about the sheer number of people the planet would be called on to support.

What to do about it? I shudder to think about the despotic and manipulative practices a few of the students advocated. Some were insufficiently repulsed by China’s draconian “one child” policy. So many had already picked up their not-so-latent misanthropy in old-school environmentalism–the evil “lifeboat ethics” of Garrett Hardin and others. Others, more enlightened, figured that easier access to contraception would help reduce birth rates, although the Economist article shows that this is rarely the case. Families the world over have about the number of children they want to have.

Falling fertility is most obviously a result of the demographic transition–first infant mortality declines due to modern medicine, leading to a short-lived population boom. Then other factors make large families less attractive, and enlightened public policy has reduced birth rates as a side effect. When stable financial systems make it possible to save for old age and even participate in pension programs, when education for girls, rising pay and job opportunities for women make employment possible, when industrialization moves people off farms, it is no longer so attractive to have large families for economic survival, as the article details.

So the “problem of overpopulation” is taking care of itself. Public policy should focus more directly on the things that make people better off, rather than trying to control their reproductive decisions. Coercive population control is immoral, and other efforts at regulating population are less effective than helping families lead productive, rewarding, and flourishing lives.

[I'll be posting a longer essay on this topic in the next few weeks, based on my recent lectures on population and environment.]

Should You Worry about Mercury in Swine Flu Vaccine?

November 6, 2009

Q: Should you worry about mercury in Swine flu vaccine?

Vaccination: Photographer James Gathany--CDC Judy Schmidt

Photographer James Gathany--CDC Judy Schmidt

A: Good question. Ok, it’s not really an “environmental” issue, but it does concern our physical bodies (and those of our children) so it is a “creation care” issue. The underlying real connection is whether we are willing to trust scientific consensus on some issues but not others. Hint: if you wear a seat belt but also believe that thimerosal preservatives in vaccines cause autism, you may be inconsistent. Similarly, if you buckle your kids up but don’t believe people are causing global warming, you may be inconsistent in your attitude toward expert opinion. (more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 327 other followers