IPLog

Order the RENEWAL Documentary ($5)

RENEWAL (2008) is the first feature-length documentary to capture the breadth and vitality of America’s religious-environmental movement. It is divided into eight 10 min. segments, perfect for congregational viewing and discussion. Two of the interfaith segments focus on our work – from Evangelicals to Buddhists, Muslims to Jews – RENEWAL provides folks of faith with hope (and ideas) for a better planet.

The producers have knocked 75% off so that you can order the documentary for just $5.

Click Here to Easily Order the Film

Iowa Shares ShopIPL with Senator Chuck Grassley

Sarah Webb, of Iowa Interfaith Power and Light sent over the following picture of her and Ben Webb giving a CFL to Senator Grassley (R-IA).

She writes:

Of all the things we brought in the folder, he seemed most interested in the ShopIPL flyer – he uses cfls in his home, but hasn’t been able to find the bulbs for his wife’s favorite chandelier. Hopefully ShopIPL can help. I gave him the discount code.

My Day on Capital Hill: A Religious Response to Global Warming

By Alexander Carpenter

Last week, about forty lay and clergy members of Interfaith Power and Light met with Senators, Representatives and their environmental legislative directors to call for rapid and equitable action on climate change.

In the House, we asked that members sign onto a global warming principles letter circulated by Reps. Waxman (D-CA), Markey (D-MA and Inslee (D-WA).

The principles include the following elements:

strong science-based targets for near-term and long-term emissions reductions; auctioning emissions allowances rather than giving them to polluting industries; investing auction revenues in clean energy technologies; returning auction proceeds to consumers, workers, and communities to offset any economic impacts; and dedicating a portion of auction proceeds to help states, communities, vulnerable developing countries, and ecosystems address harm from the degree of global warming that is now unavoidable.

In the Senate, we pressed for the strengthening of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 in three areas:

1. Bill fails to cut emissions 80% by 2050, which is the minimum emissions reduction necessary according to science. In addition, the bill fails to mandate that the EPA take action if science evolves to show further action is required. We want the bill to be science-based. Members of Congress need to build in a mechanism to adjust the bill’s current emissions reduction target if the science shows it is needed.

2. Right now, the bill takes a piece-meal approach to transitioning low-income Americans. We think the bill should fully address the cost to low-income Americans

3. The bill currently gives hundreds of billions of dollars to emitters for free which will take vital resources away from the transition to a clean energy economy. We think 100% of allowances should be auctioned and that the revenue should be used for public purposes, particularly for getting us off our dependence on foreign and fossil sources of fuel.

I had the opportunity to meet with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). We actually ran into the very tall Senator on the way to his office. He swiftly rounded a corner (wearing hip, black Puma sneakers) and almost stumbled into my boss, the Rev. Canon Sally Bingham. He led us back into his office and for the next thirty minutes listened to his Rhode Island constitutes, and shared his cap and auction fairness ideals, as well as the pragmatic realities of passing global warming legislation this year (no hope, thanks to Sen. Inhofe and President Bush, but still strategically important to push now to lay the groundwork for 2009).

Additionally, I met with staffers for Reps. Henry Waxman, Brian Bilbray (R-CA) – his staffer was very confused about the science the science, Barbara Lee (D-CA) – she speaks for me from Berkeley, and finally Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), a Blue Dog who clearly listens to his church-going constituents.

At the end of the day, our group reconvened and told their lobbying stories. Rev. Jim Deming, of Tennessee, met with the offices of both his Senators and about three Congressmembers, with two more scheduled for the next day.

In all, our folks got out the message that America’s faith community cares deeply about global warming and expects our political leaders to help us cut carbon emissions. We picked up contact information and it looks like lots of district meetings will happen before November.

(left: Jessica Brown, the Rev. Dr. Michael Reid, Alexander Carpenter – pictures by Gretchen Rust)

Rep. Waxman Fights for Some EPA Accountability

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) tangles with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing featuring EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, May 20, 2008.

AP:

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency came under sharp attack at a House hearing Tuesday, with Democratic lawmakers accusing him of repeatedly caving in to White House pressure on environmental issues such as global warming and a recently enacted health standard for smog.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected the characterization and said that while he frequently discusses EPA matters with the White House, the decisions are his.

But Johnson, appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for nearly three hours, repeatedly refused to discuss conversations he had with the White House, nor provide a number of documents that have been subpoenaed by the committee concerning the smog standard and his refusal to allow California to proceed with rules to cut greenhouse gases.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the committee chairman, said depositions provided by senior EPA staff members suggest that Johnson had been overruled or heavily influenced by the White House on recent EPA decisions on the smog standard, its rejected of a waiver for California on global warming regulations, and the EPA ongoing deliberations on whether to regulate carbon dioxide.

“You have essentially become a figurehead,” Waxman told Johnson. “… In each case, you backed down.”

He said in each of the EPA cases “the pattern is the same. The president apparently insisted in his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA scientific and legal experts,” said Waxman. “You reversed yourself after having candid conversations with the White House.”

Don’t Let the Clean Energy Tax Incentives Expire

Our coalition partners at Vote Solar sent out the following help in calling on Congress to extend the expiring Clean Energy Tax Incentives.

The Recent Political History of the Tax Incentives:

In 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress put in place a package of new tax incentives and tax credit extensions to help create jobs, bring down the cost of installing renewable energy systems, manufacturing and purchasing energy efficient products and technologies. Many of these tax incentives that offer citizens and companies partnership dollars to invest in our clean energy future are set to expire in December, 2008. If they expire, over 116,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries alone are placed at risk in 2009, and more than $19 billion in clean energy investments may be diverted to other nations with more stable investing climates.

Different legislative efforts have been put forth in the House and the Senate for the past year with no success. Efforts are currently underway again and it’s time to reach out to our Members of Congress to let them know we are fundamentally running out of time. The full House is expected to vote on the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 during the week of May 19th, and we expect it to pass. It will likely face opposition in the Senate from Members who oppose ‘pay-for’ provisions.

Clean Energy Tax Incentives Message Points:

1) Create local jobs, and build up our domestic clean energy industries: This is what we call real economic stimulus. Clean energy development is starting to become an economic engine in communities across the country. These tax incentives, if extended, will create hundreds of thousands of good jobs throughout the U.S., including manufacturing, engineering, roofing, electrical and construction jobs. A recent Navigant Consulting report shows that if these incentives are not extended over 116,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries are placed at risk, and more than $19 billion in clean energy investments may be diverted elsewhere outside the country?.

2) Enhance national energy security and energy independence: By diversifying our energy sources, protecting against rising electricity fuel prices, helping to stabilize the electricity grid, and reducing our reliance on imported energy, renewable energy and energy efficiency deliver substantial return on the money invested into these tax incentives.

3) Help reduce our nation’s contribution to global warming: Every time one of these tax incentives is claimed that means that clean renewable energy, and energy efficiency products are being installed reducing the need for energy production from fossil-fuels.

4) Support states efforts to go ‘green’: 26 states have policies in place that mandate the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. These tax incentives make it substantially cheaper for those states to meet their clean energy goals.

5) Empower individuals: These tax incentives empower individual citizens to take action to improve our energy independence and reduce the production of global warming gases. 85% of Americans agree that “The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power.” (Poll conducted by Zogby International and commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association surveying Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable energy).

Don’t Let the Clean Energy Tax Incentives Expire

Our coalition partners at Vote Solar sent out the following help in calling on Congress to extend the expiring Clean Energy Tax Incentives.

The Recent Political History of the Tax Incentives:

In 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress put in place a package of new tax incentives and tax credit extensions to help create jobs, bring down the cost of installing renewable energy systems, manufacturing and purchasing energy efficient products and technologies. Many of these tax incentives that offer citizens and companies partnership dollars to invest in our clean energy future are set to expire in December, 2008. If they expire, over 116,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries alone are placed at risk in 2009, and more than $19 billion in clean energy investments may be diverted to other nations with more stable investing climates.

Different legislative efforts have been put forth in the House and the Senate for the past year with no success. Efforts are currently underway again and it’s time to reach out to our Members of Congress to let them know we are fundamentally running out of time. The full House is expected to vote on the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 during the week of May 19th, and we expect it to pass. It will likely face opposition in the Senate from Members who oppose ‘pay-for’ provisions.

Clean Energy Tax Incentives Message Points:

1) Create local jobs, and build up our domestic clean energy industries: This is what we call real economic stimulus. Clean energy development is starting to become an economic engine in communities across the country. These tax incentives, if extended, will create hundreds of thousands of good jobs throughout the U.S., including manufacturing, engineering, roofing, electrical and construction jobs. A recent Navigant Consulting report shows that if these incentives are not extended over 116,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries are placed at risk, and more than $19 billion in clean energy investments may be diverted elsewhere outside the country?.

2) Enhance national energy security and energy independence: By diversifying our energy sources, protecting against rising electricity fuel prices, helping to stabilize the electricity grid, and reducing our reliance on imported energy, renewable energy and energy efficiency deliver substantial return on the money invested into these tax incentives.

3) Help reduce our nation’s contribution to global warming: Every time one of these tax incentives is claimed that means that clean renewable energy, and energy efficiency products are being installed reducing the need for energy production from fossil-fuels.

4) Support states efforts to go ‘green’: 26 states have policies in place that mandate the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. These tax incentives make it substantially cheaper for those states to meet their clean energy goals.

5) Empower individuals: These tax incentives empower individual citizens to take action to improve our energy independence and reduce the production of global warming gases. 85% of Americans agree that “The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power.” (Poll conducted by Zogby International and commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association surveying Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable energy).

The Proper Cleaning and Disposal of CFLs

CFL Facts has some helpful information that clears up the myths about mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lamps.

Q: I have read that CFLs contain mercury. Is that correct?

A: Yes, all CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury, typically about 5 mg, which is 1/6000th of an ounce (mass). If all the mercury were concentrated in one droplet, that droplet would have a diameter of only 1.1 mm, which is 0.042 inches. Typical mercury-based fever thermometers contain 0.5 to 3 grams of mercury, which is 100 to 600 times as much mercury as a CFL that has 5 mg of mercury. Data on the mercury content of fever thermometers comes from: Mercury and the Environment – Sources of Mercury – Mercury Containing Products, a web site maintained by the Canadian government.

Q: Doesn’t disposal of mercury-based products harm the environment?

A: Yes, mercury is classified as a hazardous material by the US Environmental Protection Agency and CFLs should be recycled instead of being thrown out with the normal trash. However, in many cases use of CFLs will offset mercury that would otherwise be introduced into the environment from other sources. For example, coal contains mercury and this mercury is released into the environment when coal is burned to produce electricity. If the electricity used to operate your lamps is generated from coal and you operate 100-watt incandescent lamps for 10,000 hours, the power generating plant will release between 40 mg and 70 mg of mercury into the environment, depending upon the type of coal being used. In instead of the 100-watt incandescent lamp, you use a 25-watt CFL, the power plant mercury emissions drop to between 10 and 18 mg over the same 10,000 hour period, again depending upon the type of coal used. Even when the 5 mg of mercury in the CFL is added to the environment at the end of the lamp’s 10,000 hours life, the total mercury from using the CFL is far less than using the incandescent lamp. Mercury emissions will be lower for For lower power incandescent lamps and CFL replacements, but for any incandescent lamp of 40 watts or greater, there will be more mercury added to the environment by using an incandescent lamp than by using a CFL, assuming that the electricity used to operate both is generated by burning coal.

If the electrical power used to operate your lamps comes from oil, hydro, wind, even nuclear power plants then use of a CFL will not be directly offsetting mercury released by power plants. However, by using less electrical power from your “low-mercury” or “mercury-free” generating plant, you make more of this relatively clean power available to replace power generated by coal-fired plants. And, you will save money, no matter what type of fuel is used to generate your electrical power.

Because CFLs contain mercury they should be recycled instead of thrown in the normal trash. However, even if a relatively large number of CFLs are disposed of in landfills instead of being recycled, they will not significantly increase the amount of mercury in the waste stream. A report titled Mercury Programme, published by the United Nations Environmental Programme, estimated that in 2000 there were 145 metric tons of mercury added to the solid waste stream in the United States. If 200 million CFLs, each containing 5 mg of mercury were placed in the solid waste stream in one year, they would add only 1 metric ton, or less than 0.7% of the total annual mercury load in the waste stream.

Need to find a CFL disposal site? Earth911.org has a handy search function that allows you to enter the type of material, like a CFL, and your location. Check it out here.

The EPA also has an extensive .pdf FAQ covering these issues.

How to Destroy a Mountain

The filmmakers behind Burning Our Future explain the process of Mountain Top Removal.

Coal exists in the mountains of Appalachia like layers in a cake, with solid rock between the layers. A traditional mine is made of tunnels in the earth created by taking out the coal. But in order to prevent a collapse of the mountain, sections of coal are left untouched and in the upper reaches of the mountains, the higher layers are often not mined at all.

The coal industry figured out that if they could just REMOVE the mountain from the top, exposing the coal, they could extract it all – cheaply, and with better safety standards for miners. So…..

Step 1 – Clear cut the trees. Here, natures bounty of high and low-growth vegetation, with the rich diversity of the temperate forest and understory, is simply removed. It is supposed to be “harvest” but is almost always simply cut, piled, and pushed off the steep slopes into the valleys below.

Step 2 – Blasting. Millions of tons of explosives are set deep within the layer of rock that sits above the coal seam. This rock is BLASTED. (see the trailer for a visual).

Step 3 – Valley Fill – The loose rock is disposed of, pushed off the steep slopes into the valleys below and compacted into what is called a “valley fill” – a terraced wall of compacted earth with little structural integrity. Often a “drag line” is employed to move large sections of earth with its huge shove, the size of a large home.

Step 4 – Coal harvest – the exposed coal seam is scooped up with bulldozers and carted off for chemical processing at a nearby plant.

Step 5 – Blasting. The next layer of rock now needs to be removed and the process begins again.

Thus, minimal labor results in maximum coal extraction. Unfortunately, it is also maximum damage to the environment. Today, about 40% of the coal extracted in West Virginia is mined in this manner…and growing.

Evangelicals and Global Warming

Evangelicals and scientists travel to Homer, Alaska to find common ground on global warming amongst local pastors. This footage is related to the NOW on PBS program “God and Global Warming.” The show follows an historic and unlikely alliance of religious and scientific leaders who travel to Alaska to witness first-hand the effects of global warming.

Roundup: IPL Fights Coal

Thanks to Allison:

Here’s a photo of the rally outside of Dominion shareholder meeting in Chicago that Clare so eloquently spoke at.

Environmental News Service writes:

Dominion Power proposes building a coal-fired power plant in Wise County, Virginia, but many Virginians oppose the facility because of the climate-warming greenhouse gases it would produce.

So many Virginians want to block the power plant that their 42,400 signatures fill rolls of paper a mile long displayed Thursday by the Wise Energy for Virginia coalition at a noon rally in Richmond.

The event in Kanawha Plaza drew more than 100 people, who were given green bandanas to wear in a show of unity. The organizers draped the petition around the park. The 53 rolls, each 100 feet long, cover the 5,280 feet in one mile.

After a brief press conference, members of the coalition gathered up the petition and presented it to a Dominion representative.

Today, the mile-long petition will be presented to company executives at Dominion’s annual shareholder meeting in Chicago.

Here’s a picture of Richmond’s Rabbi Romer.

Greater Washington IPL writes: On May 8, hundreds from across Virginia joined Wise County residents in Richmond at a park across from Dominion’s headquarters. They delivered to company representatives a “mile long” petition against a proposed coal-fired power plant in Wise County, VA and in favor of efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy.

Alice, of North Carolina IPL was in the Duke meeting asking the tough questions to Jim Rogers. The Charlotte Observer writes:

As protestors lined the sidewalk outside the company’s uptown headquarters, Duke Energy Corp. shareholders grilled chief executive Jim Rogers for nearly 90 minutes about the company’s decision to build a new coal-fired power plant in the Blue Ridge foothills.

The grilling came at the end of the Charlotte-based utility’s annual shareholders’ meeting, where a new board of directors was elected and Rogers spoke about future plans.

But questions from shareholders were mostly about building an 800-megawatt coal-fired power unit at the company’s Cliffside plant about 55 miles west of Charlotte. Duke produces about 70 percent of its electricity from coal in its five-state territory.

Holly Garrett, 25, told Rogers she was concerned with mountaintop removal in Appalachian mining, which can destroy habitats. She asked Rogers if he could guarantee a stop to the practice. Duke buys coal from independent suppliers.

“I wish I had that kind of power,” Rogers said.

“You do … you’re the CEO,” she replied.

“I can’t guarantee that,” said Rogers, who said he would work on the issue.