Usually, these warnings are spot on, even if they’re scary and hard to wrap your head around.

Last week, we hit a milestone that we knew was coming but which is still truly terrible. The New York Times headline read, “Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears.” It sounded innocuous enough—a little bit like the usual alarmism that’s correct but depressing—until you read further into the article.

Here are some of the salient bits:

Scientific monitors reported that the gas had reached an average daily level that surpassed 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering.

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.

To review: we’ve hit a point where the average daily level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is consistently above 400 parts per million.

The last time there was this much carbon in the air, humans did not yet exist. (Seriously, just think about that for a second!)

To say this is dangerous and unsustainable is to understate the situation in a significant way.

Understanding the magnitude of this new state of the atmosphere requires some context. 350.org explains the situation like this:

We just went over the 400, but what are the other two numbers?

But for a variety of reasons, it will be difficult or unwieldy to get back to 275 ppm. That’s where 350 comes in.

Scientists agree that we’re in a serious pickle. “It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading.

Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a continuing rise could be catastrophic. “It means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,” he said.

Is there anything to be done about this, besides my personal favorite strategy of moping?

Well, yes. Congress could pass significant legislation to address the effects of climate change.

A price on carbon would do this in the most serious and immediate way, but there are other options too.

Legislation helping communities cope with the local impacts of a changing climate can ease the transition until bigger scale legislation is possible. S. 761, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, is another good first step; as Sen. Shaheen likes to say, “the best greenhouse gas is the one we never emit in the first place.”

Some moping is allowed after this shocking and, frankly, depressing news, but not too much! Take this moment to write to your representatives or to your local newspaper and ask Congress to consider this their loudest wakeup call yet, and to begin serious work on legislation to price carbon, mitigate the effects of climate change, and on energy efficiency measures like S. 761.

Yes, this is seriously depressing news. But the joke's on us if we don't take this moment to continue pushing for action. Let's get going now so we don't ever see headlines about 450 or 500 parts per million.

April was an important month for energy legislation. Two senators, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen (NH) and Republican Rob Portman (OH) introduced the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 (S. 761). Similar in many ways to a bill introduced last Congress (S. 1000), this bipartisan bill is a significant step forward in the ongoing effort to pass energy legislation that might reduce greenhouse gas emissions through Congress. Read more about Shaheen-Portman and how your lobbying made it happen. Then ask your senators to support the legislation.

What's up with the carbon tax?

FCNL continues to push for a carbon tax. Presently, we pay tremendous social, ecological, and health costs as a result of the pollution caused by carbon emissions, but we do not pay in economic terms. This is what economists call a “market failure.” A carbon tax would correct this market failure by placing a tax on carbon dioxide pollution resulting from fossil fuel production and use. FCNL continues to publicly support the carbon tax. Despite present insufficient political support for such a tax, we believe it is important to advocate for a policy that would realign fundamental economic principles and the regulations that govern our economy. Read more about our efforts to pass a carbon tax and tell your senators that a carbon tax is an important framework for action on climate change.

Spring Lobby Weekend Round-Up

In March, over 100 students and committed environmental activists joined us here in Washington for our annual Spring Lobby Weekend. Congress told us that we’re doing exactly what’s necessary but that we can’t -- and shouldn’t -- let up now. Please consider joining us and the incredible citizen lobbyists to make a difference on climate change. Further, in the time since Spring Lobby Weekend, one of the bills we lobbied on has been introduced! Read all about S. 761, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, or relive the awesome movements from Spring Lobby Weekend!

National Partnership on Climate Solutions and Climate Summit

FCNL continues to work with the National Partnership on Climate Solutions, asking President Obama to host a summit on climate solutions. The Partnership has a broad representation from many sectors, including faith, labor, military and business. We continue to urge the White House to hold a summit because it would offer the President the opportunity to set the tone for the nation and for Congress on climate change. Read more about the climate summit movement.

This Month on Capitol Hill and at FCNL:

• FCNL provided comments to the House Ways and Means Committee during their tax reform process and provided guidance to the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change.
• Senator Whitehouse (RI) mentioned and quoted FCNL on the Senate floor. Watch his speech.
• FCNL's Director of Foreign Policy Michael Shank and I penned an op-ed supporting a carbon tax.
• Tough times are ahead on Keystone XL.
• Earth Day was in April! Do you know about the history of Earth Day?

Even More!

• We're having a telephone party! We invite you to join a conference call to hear about and discuss the recent work of the Sustainable Energy and Environment program on Thursday, May 18, from 8:00 to 9:00 pm EDT. Please contact Hannah if you’d like to participate.
• Couldn't make it to Spring Lobby Weekend? You can watch Monday's diversity briefing.
• Want to read more about the history of Earth Day and the present predicament of the environmental movement? The New Yorker has you covered.

We met with White House officials in January about the prospect of a summit, but this and subsequent smaller meetings have not yet resulted in a decision. We continue our advocacy on this front, and are undertaking other efforts including:

On the last point, NPCS issued a report Jobs vs. Jobs: The Refusal to Rapidly Cut Greenhouse Gas Emission Is Destroying Jobs, The Economy, and The Climate, finding that the failure to cut emissions destroys jobs right now and sacrifices the growth of millions of future jobs. For example, Sandy caused tens of thousands of job losses as businesses were flooded, physically damaged, or destroyed. The ongoing historic drought has cost more than $35 billion in the Midwest alone so far, pushed up the price of many commodities, and forced many farms and food processing firms into bankruptcy. Details are available on the NPCS website.

A carbon tax is the simplest, fairest way to correct the market failure that results when we do not pay to pollute—the current situation. It would set the nation on the necessary path of solutions to climate disruption by reducing carbon dioxide pollution - the greatest contributor to national greenhouse gas emissions - and paving the way for an earnest transition to renewable energy deployment across the country.

Support for such a tax has been expressed by representatives from various sectors and political parties and for various reasons. Though Senators Boxer and Sanders have introduced a carbon tax bill (S. 332), this broad based support for the concept has not yet manifest into bipartisan support in Congress. Rather, thus far, an oppositional reaction was manifest in the House. Recently, FCNL quite publicly expressed its support for a tax on carbon pollution.  We also provided comments to the House Ways and Means Committee’s request for public input in its deliberation of comprehensive tax reform. Additional justifications for this tax and for action on climate disruption generally from FCNL and other faith organizations can be found here.

Despite presently insufficient political support for a tax on carbon pollution, we believe it important to continue advocacy for it because among other things, the lack of a tax is a contraction of established economic principles that economic activity which causes harm to others be held accountable for such harms in order to maximize social and economic benefits for society as a whole. Thus, for example, we pay for the economic, health and environmental costs for many polluting activities such as the disposal of some solid and hazardous wastes, to balance out the costs and benefits of such activities.

No balance exists regarding anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Producers and users of fossil fuels pay no price for the harmful impacts of such use as is increasingly manifest by the unprecedented and runaway increases in global temperatures and other manifestations of climate disruption. And indeed, according to many scientists, a 4 degree Celsius increase will destabilize world societies in ways such as widespread crop failures and malnutrition and the dislocation of large numbers of people from land inundated by rising seas. A tax on carbon pollution in the United States and elsewhere is one efficient, effective, and economic way to avert future catastrophe.

What would the bill do?

Title I, one of the most important provisions of the bill, establishes the standards for the development of federal building codes, and provides state and tribal governments with processes and resources to develop their own, should they so choose. These provisions govern what kind of materials may be used in construction, how retrofits must be done—in short, how efficiently our buildings run.

Shaheen-Portman would “strengthen the national building model codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more efficient” while simultaneously working to make the code-writing process more transparent. The goal is to achieve net-zero-energy building by 2030. Shaheen-Portman would help manufacturers become more competitive by establishing a loan program to help finance efficiency upgrades by ensuring a supply chain of energy-efficient building materials. Further, the bill would encourage the Department of Energy to work with private sector partners to invest in research and development of innovative energy technology.

As the federal government is the single largest energy user in the country, S. 761 would require it to adopt energy saving techniques for a wide array of technologies. Agencies would be better able to share “best practices” and to better monitor energy use. An official summary of S. 761 hasn’t been released yet, but if you’re feeling intrepid you can read the text of the legislation here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.761: However, a one page summary of S. 1000, which is similar to S. 761, can be found at http://www.ase.org/resources/shaheen-portman-s1000-one-page-summary

Why should we care?

Shaheen-Portman isn’t just the first attempt at getting Congress to consider energy legislation—though that is true, and the importance of this fact cannot be overstated. Shaheen -Portman is a bipartisan bill with all kinds of civilian support behind it, from manufacturers to chemical companies, from environmental groups to Big Business.

Shaheen-Portman is also, substantively, a very strong bill. In endorsing the bill, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) noted that “energy efficiency costs less than new power generation, saves families and businesses money, and creates jobs.”It creates jobs, saves money, and reduces GHG emissions.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) did a study on this bill’s predecessor, S. 1000, finding that it could have “produced 80,000 net jobs and saved consumers $4 billion on their energy bills in 2020. In 2030, 159,000 net jobs would have been created and consumers would have saved $20 billion on their energy bills.”

It has a reasonable chance of passage

In this hyper-partisan Congress, this is a bold statement. The Shaheen –Portman legislation is a bipartisan bill with a tremendous amount of civilian support behind it, from manufacturers and chemical companies to environmental groups and the faith community. Last Congress’ version of the bill passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by an 18-3 vote. This year’s version contains language reflecting continued compromise between the parties.

In addition to these clear economic benefits, S. 761 will bring more intangible benefits to our communities. By helping businesses and families become more energy efficient, we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. We can begin to stem the tide of destructive events that are tied to climate change, including droughts and rising sea levels; when these events are less frequent and less destructive, our communities will be safer and more sound, strengthening the security of the United States and positively impacting our standing in the world.

FCNL is thrilled to work with Senators Shaheen and Portman to pass S. 761. We hope you’ll join us by taking action today. Write to your senator to ask them to cosponsor S. 761, and watch this space for updates as the bill progresses through the committee process.

In the Senate

Ask Your Senators to Cosponsor the Climate Protection Act (S. 332)

Human driven carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of global warming and yet polluters do not pay for those costs. The Climate Protection Act, introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (CA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) in February, sets a rising and predictable fee on carbon emissions that must be paid by producers. Sixty percent of the revenue generated by the fee is returned to the taxpayer. Urge your senators to cosponsor this legislation.

Let Your Senators Know You Support...

Bipartisan legislation that would place a cap on carbon pollution and promote energy efficiency. Such a bill will be introduced later this year: Senators Maria Cantwell (WA) and Susan Collins (ME) are planning to reintroduce the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 83% by the year 2050. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (NH) and Rob Portman (OH) will soon re-introduce their Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which could save consumers $4 billion by 2020, add 80,000 jobs to the economy, and cut carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking five million cars off the road. Let your senators know that this legislation is coming and that you hope they will support the bills when introduced.

In the House

Ask Your Representative to Acknowledge the Gravity of Carbon Pollution

Persuading a bipartisan majority in the House to acknowledge the scientific evidence about the severity of climate change and the importance of congressional action is the next step. Talk about why you are concerned about carbon pollution, considering sharing with your representative a statement of faith recognizing the reality of climate change or a list of the business, military, and political leaders from both major political parties who are calling for pricing carbon (both are available from FCNL).

Let Your Representative Know You Support...

Legislation that would promote energy efficiency and that would place a cap on carbon pollution. We expect a bipartisan group of representatives will introduce legislation to promote energy efficiency in the next few months. There may also be efforts to re-introduce legislation similar to Connecticut Rep. John Larson’s America’ Energy Security Trust Fund Act. Let your representatives know you would like her or him to support this legislation if introduced.

Get more information on upcoming legislation >>

The Boxer-Sanders Bill is comprehensive climate legislation that takes action on many of the worst causes of climate change. This legislation would make it costlier to use carbon and easier to avoid it. By putting a price on carbon pollution and investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, the Senate can address some of the worst causes of climate change. But because it also provides rebates, it makes sure that industrial polluters and the oil industry pays their fair share of slowing down climate change—without disproportionately burdening low-income individuals and families.

First, the bill sets a price on carbon pollution. This is the most important feature of the bill, clearly, as without a price on carbon we cannot begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the bill creates better consumer protection from the effects of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking.” Third, the bill creates significant investment in energy efficiency. Fourth, the bill would create a Family Clean Energy Rebate Program. Fifth, the bill would take steps toward ensuring fair trade and international cooperation. Finally, the bill would help pay down the debt.

Read more.

The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (Shaheen-Portman)

The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness (ESIC) Act of 2011 is a national strategy to increase the use of energy efficiency technologies in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of our economy, while also fostering job creation.

This bipartisan bill uses a variety of low-cost tools to reduce barriers for private sector energy users and drive adoption of off-the-shelf efficiency technologies that will save businesses and consumers money, make America more energy independent, and reduce emissions. Efficiency technologies are commercially available today, can be widely deployed in every state in the nation, and pay for themselves through energy savings relatively quickly.

The Shaheen-Portman bill will help speed the transition to a more energy efficient economy, increasing both our economic competitiveness and our energy security for the coming decades, while stimulating the economy and encouraging private sector job creation.

Read more of the summary prepared by the co-sponsors.

The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (Cantwell-Collins)

The CLEAR Act uses a cap-and-refund policy framework to set a price on carbon.

Set firm, reasonable and predictable reductions in the quantity of fossil carbon that can be sold into commerce in the United States. Every upstream fossil fuel producer or importer (e.g., coal mining companies, oil and natural gas producers) participates in a monthly auction to bid for “carbon shares”, permits required to accompany each ton of fossil carbon embedded in the fuel they are placing into commerce. Revenues are refunded directly to every American or directed toward climate research and related programs.

Read more of the summary prepared by the co-sponsors.

Carbon Pollution Fee (Waxman-Whitehouse)

The Waxman-Whitehouse discussion draft outlines a legislative framework that would:

Read more of the summary prepared by the co-sponsors.

Last Friday afternoon, the State Department Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Affairs issued a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline (KXL). FCNL is dismayed with the content of the State Department’s findings, which assumes that this ecologically destructive and carbon-intensive extraction and processing of highly corrosive oil, would develop at roughly the same pace regardless of whether the United States issues a permit for this pipeline. These findings are particularly disconcerting when contrasted against President Obama’s soaring rhetoric about his commitment to address climate change and the appointment of Secretary Kerry, who as a Senator, remained even during the days of deafening silence on climate change, one of the most steadfast and passionate advocates for action.

Would the rate of oilsands development would be affected by the Pipeline?

According to a study by the Canadian Pembina Institute, if constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would be the largest and most significant proposed oilsands pipeline in the world with a capacity of 830,000 barrels per day. The pipeline would enable a 36 per cent increase in oilsands production, the equivalent in annual greenhouse emissions of over 4.6 million passenger vehicles. Currently, no other avenues for oilsands transport are of similar scale or in this advanced stage of development.

Are there potential negative consequences due to accidents?

The SEIS also does not adequately consider the demonstrated higher risk of pipeline failure due to external corrosion in high temperature pipelines like Keystone XL. The spill of 1.2 million gallons of oilsands into 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River in 2010 tangibly demonstrates the expense ($800 million) and unprecedented difficulty in cleaning up this kind of oil. TransCanada, which would construct the Keystone XL pipeline, is currently under a sweeping audit for systematic violations of minimum safety regulations in the construction of its pipelines. Furthermore, American taxpayers, not oilsands refiners, foot the bill for spills of tar sands oil on US soil. An IRS decision exempts tar sands refiners from paying the 8-cents-per-barrel excise tax applied to other crude oil and petroleum products that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

What about the potential jobs?

The job creation figures are a pipedream. The SEIS, based on TransCanada’s own numbers, shows that at the most 3,900 temporary, construction jobs, only 35 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline, and that only 10% of the total workforce will be hired locally. Most of the oilsands is destined for export, contradicting the claim that KXL will improve the US’s energy independence.

Industry advocates point to growing demand for oil sands crude and jobs as justification for KXL’s construction. First, based on the increasing occurrence of extreme weather events and projections supported by a near consensus of the scientific community, the world needs to wean itself off of fossil fuels quickly and dramatically, not continue its development. Notwithstanding a climate crisis, fossil fuels are a finite source, thus this industry will inevitably be a failed business model. Wind, solar, and geothermal are infinite sources which we must rely on in the future, and therefore must point ourselves in that direction.

The legacy of fossil fuel development, including for oilsands, is dirty and grim. These oil sands lie under approximately 140,000 square kilometers of the boreal forest in northern Alberta, which is being destroyed for its extraction. The development is the largest source of GHG emissions in Canada, and is sickening the peoples and ecology around it.

The Good News – You Can Act

Fortunately, this SEIS is not the final word. A final decision is not likely until sometime in mid-July at the earliest, for the SEIS is subject to a 45-day comment period, a final EIS likely to at least 30 days of public comment, and then another 45 days for public comment on a national interest determination. Please consider providing your comments to the report to the State Department at keystonecomments@state.gov and also coming to our Spring Lobby Weekend to help us lobby for a new US approach to climate disruption.

This is the second edition of the newly relaunched Green Hill Newsletter, a monthly update from FCNL's Energy and Environment team: Legislative Secretary Jose Aguto and Program Assistant Hannah Solomon-Strauss. As we return to a monthly schedule, please send suggestions for content to hannah@fcnl.org.

Climate Change: Turning Protest Into Policy

President Obama’s strong statements on climate change during his inaugural and the State of the Union addresses provided some hope that he would finally address the great challenge of our generation, but a split Congress could be a roadblock. We need substantive action from the administration and Congress to address climate disruption with effort commensurate with the threats. FCNL's vertical approach—leading and participating in initiatives with people working at all levels of the political process, from the grassroots all the way up to the White House—is intended to nurture a political environment open to meaningful actions. In the coming weeks, look for ways to get involved and more information through teleconferences and other materials. And plan now to come to Washington for our Spring Lobby Weekend, March 16-19.

Spring Lobby Weekend: March 16-19 in Washington, DC

If it were easy to convince people of the imminent threat posed by human-caused climate change, we’d be a decade into a solution. Movies and mobilizations have inspired the nation, but they haven’t changed federal policy. We’ll talk to congressional staff and Washington insiders and figure out what we can make happen in 2013. There’s still time to register at fcnl.org/climatechange.

Support the Climate Summit – Ask Your Friends to Sign On

The Climate Summit Coalition – of which FCNL is a charter member – has asked the Obama administration to host a summit showcasing the solutions that communities, businesses, governments, farms, non-profits and individuals have initiated to address climate change. Initiatives and collaboratives would follow that catalyze similar efforts across the country. The White House has expressed interest in this non-partisan effort that highlights broad public support for solutions that inspire the can-do spirit of U.S. society. Please increase the breadth and depth of the nation’s interest by signing on and asking your friends, neighbors and colleagues from other parts of your community to do the same.

This Month on Capitol Hill and at FCNL:

• In mid-February, Senators Barbara Boxer (CA) and Bernie Sanders (VT) introduced a bill to put a price on carbon, increase standards for fracking, invest in renewable energy and take steps toward adaptation and conservation of our communities and natural resources. The Boxer-Sanders bill is a good first step – read our full analysis.
• What Now? From Protest to Policy Change (2/20/2013)
• President Obama’s Second Inauguration: A Moment for Celebration (1/23/2013)
• Advancing from Silence to Deeds (1/23/2013)
• We Have the Answers We Seek: Solving Our Financial and Environmental Woes with Simple Policies (1/9/2013)

According to a summary released by Sanders’s office, the bill has six main features, some of which are more politically viable than others, and some of which would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions more than others.

First, the bill sets a price on carbon pollution. This is the most important feature of the bill, clearly, as without a price on carbon we cannot begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The features of the price are:

It is estimated that this pricing scheme could reduce emissions roughly 20% from 2005 levels by 2025. Other emission reduction schemes, for example those administered by the EPA, would continue and would supplement these reduced emissions.

Second, the bill creates better consumer protection from the effects of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking.” Because the price on carbon could produce a rush for natural gas and an increase in fracking, the bill ends the “Haliburton exception” from the Safe Drinking Water Act that fracking presently enjoys, and requires the disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process.

Third, the bill creates significant investment in energy efficiency. There are five main proposals for this investment, using some of the revenues generated from the fee on carbon. The bill would call for:

Fourth, the bill would create a Family Clean Energy Rebate Program. Three-fifth of the revenue from the carbon fee would be rebated back to families, roughly based on the model presently used in Alaska for distributing dividends from oil drilling profits. Thus even if energy bills increase because extraction companies bill consumers more after the carbon fee is implemented, families will receive a rebate for the money spent on those higher bills.

Fifth, the bill would take steps toward ensuring fair trade and international cooperation. In order to ensure that US companies are not at a disadvantage or to prevent inadvertent privileging of foreign energy, all imported fuels and products would also be subject to the carbon fee. The only exception to this fee is if the exporting country also has a carbon pricing scheme that has already accounted for the emissions from that fuel. Revenues from these fees would be allocated to improve infrastructure resiliency and to fund projects that protect natural resources and wildlife. These funds would also help the United States meet commitments it has already made with regard to global climate adaptation. The bill’s authors expect that this provision can spur other countries to join a carbon pricing scheme.

Finally, the bill would help pay down the debt. This bill, with a companion, would end oil and gas subsidies while extending subsidies for renewable energy programs. This will generate about $300 billion that will go to debt reduction over ten years.

Clearly, this bill does a lot! What do we think of it, and where do we see it going? Only one of those questions is easy to answer.

FCNL generally supports the Sanders-Boxer bill (or, as we’re affectionately calling it, SandBox). This is the first significant piece of climate change legislation to be introduced by Congress in two years. That is significant progress. It is a tangible marker for discussions, briefings and hearings on the Hill, which were also conspicuously lacking in the last Congress.

We think it’s imperative to put a price on carbon pollution, and in a way that doesn’t disproportionately affect those with the least means to adapt. This bill does that, though if we are to dramatically reduce GHG emissions , an even more aggressive pricing scheme for carbon pollution may be merited, which would charge more, have a higher escalation rate, and be tied to inflation. Nevertheless, this is a great start.

Further, it’s heartening to see the reaction outside Congress. This is not a bill intended to make headlines for a few days and then disappear quietly. Several powerful outside groups have been vocal in their support for SandBox, including Bill McKibben, the Sierra Club, the Center for American Progress, the American Wind Energy Association, the National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, the National Community Action Foundation, and the governor of Vermont.

This bill is an impressive effort in the right direction. Most importantly, it is a bill. We have been calling for significant legislation that does exactly these things for so long, and the Senate has finally produced legislation that is unabashed in its efforts to address the worst causes of climate change and provide solutions.

We’re excited that SandBox has been introduced, and we’re looking forward to working closely with the Senate in the coming months.

Rep. Jim Moran speaks at FCNL's briefing on faith and climate change.

Last week, FCNL was thrilled to sponsor a briefing in the House entitled, “Climate Change: Faith Leaders Offer Support for Collaborative, Long-term Solutions.” The briefing was co-sponsored by the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, the Franciscan Action Network, Catholics United, and the Earth Policy Institute. Representatives from the NAACP were able to join us too.

Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute provided the keynote address on the dangers of climate change and the tremendous potential for action. Leaders from the co-sponsoring groups also gave remarks, including Reverend Mitch Hescox, Rabbi David Saperstein, and Sister Rose Marie Kujawa. We were honored that Representatives Jim Moran (VA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), and Ed Markey (MA) were able to join us and to address the assembled crowd. We also were happy to have the chance to hear from Asterio Takesy, the ambassador from the Federated States of Micronesia. At an average of only six feet above sea level, Micronesia is literally on the front lines of climate change.

The briefing had a singular focus. We wanted to deliver the message to Congress that the faith community cares about climate change; that we’re a strong and diverse coalition; and that we’re here and ready to help Congress pass the policy solutions that we so desperately need.

We’re aware that Congress has heard from the “big green” environmental groups, but not enough from other sectors of civil society who care about climate change, like faith, diversity, business, farmers, and youth. These are the voices that matter if we are to generate the mobilization and solutions on the Hill and throughout the country.

We are taking steps to fix that imbalance. We come from the perspective that action on climate change is a moral imperative, and that we must leave a better earth for our children and grandchildren. At the briefing, speakers echoed again and again that their faith backgrounds compelled them to care for creation. The climate debate is, for these speakers and for so many of us, deeply grounded in faith.

The briefing is only the first step in what is sure to be a long road toward creating serious, comprehensive policy solutions to the climate crisis, but it was an important step. We intend to continue with this series of briefings to highlight the coalition that stands behind finding solutions to climate change.

The faith voice is an important one in so many areas of politics, and it should be just as important in this--perhaps the most important issue of the future. The purpose of the briefing was to deliver a very simple message: We’re here, we care, and we’re ready to work with you on solutions. We’re looking forward to continuing this series of briefings to continue to drive this message home, but we’re also inspired by the reception we’ve received for this first briefing.

Video of the event will be available soon.

As we look past this sometimes-brutal election season and seek a solution to the challenge of climate disruption, we are looking in particular to policies that will reduce national greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, increase clean energy production and improve energy efficiency. This list derives primarily from legislative efforts that Congress has proposed in the past without success which are now ripe for re-consideration and action. This list is not exhaustive – especially since climate disruption impacts so many facets of human life and Earth’s ecology—but rather is a set of the recent and future policy prescriptions to climate change. These legislative priorities will be regularly reconsidered in light of circumstances.

If we’re ready to have this conversation as a nation, we’re ready with solutions. We’ll be working starting now to get five policy measures to help the environment through Congress and to the President’s desk.

We’re ready with solutions. Will you join us?

Click any of the five to read more about the policy and what it would mean for the environment.

1. Put a price on carbon pollution

When we dispose of waste – such as household, commercial, and hazardous waste – we pay a fee, because there are costs associated with that activity. But right now, when we dump carbon dioxide into the air, we aren’t charged a penny. This free ride is what economists call a market failure. The actual costs of polluting the atmosphere – including climate disruption -- are enormous. However, polluters don’t pay those costs. Instead, future generations are stuck with the tab. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that as price increases, demand decreases—and demand for substitutes increases. Thus the simplest thing we could do to reduce the amount of carbon we emit—and to incentivize use of cleaner sources of energy—is to put a price on carbon pollution. Putting a price on carbon can fix this market failure, and would be one of the simplest, clearest, and most dramatic steps we can take right now to reduce the amount of carbon we emit every day. It would literally change the cost-benefit analysis that polluters presently make.

Back to top

2. Create incentives for energy efficiency, especially in industry

The best plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions comes in not emitting those gases in the first place. Energy efficient offices, houses, and especially factories, can take huge strides toward reducing the amount of energy wasted through leaky windows, subpar heating and cooling systems, and other inefficiencies in the system.

A big step in the right direction would be a national plan to strengthen building codes and to require net-zero-energy buildings within a logical timeframe. The Federal government can use tools to reduce the barriers for private energy users and to drive adoption of these new, cleaner energies. Good paying and steady green jobs can be created in making our homes, appliances, and manufacturing processes more energy efficient. Efficient technologies are available today, available everywhere, and practicable for use—we just need to incentivize their use. In the end, these upgrades will pay for themselves in the form of reduced energy consumption.

Back to top

3. Extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC).

The PTC is a provision in the tax code that allows producers of renewable energy to reduce the amount of money they pay in taxes. Over the past seven years, the PTC has been a major driver of the development of wind power. The present PTC allows these companies can reduce their tax burden by 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour produced for the first ten years of production.

The PTC is subject to renewal every year, and Congress is debating whether it should be renewed this year. If not, an estimated 37,000 Americans stand to lose their jobs. The uncertainty has already caused some companies to shutter and is makes it difficult for the wind industry to become firmly established and to have successive years of steady growth. For some context, between 2002 and 2008, federal subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $70.2 billion, compared to $12.2 billion for renewable energy. Fossil fuel subsidies do not have to go through this annual renewal process.

The PTC, either as a standalone bill or as a provision in a larger bill, will be up for a vote during the lame duck session. To help stabilize—and continue to grow—the renewable energy industry, Congress must extend the PTC for the renewable energy industry.

Back to top

4. End subsides for the extraction industries

Amid all the talk of the fiscal cliff, one factor that often gets left out is the $113 billion in federal subsidies that will be paid to oil, gas, and coal industries over the next ten years. At their inception, these industries needed government help to be sustainable, but that need has long since passed. The Big Five oil companies alone netted $90.7 billion in profit so far this year. Fossil fuels are federally subsidized at nearly six times the rate of renewable energy technologies, and have been for the last century. It’s time that we redirected those dollars into spending on renewable industries—either through the PTC, outlined above, or simply through a subsidy switch from fossil fuels to renewables.

Back to top

5. Create Tax Parity for the Renewables Sector

When a business is first forming, it may have the option of creating itself as a “master limited partnership” (MLP). An MLP is taxed as a partnership but has ownership interests that are traded like corporate stock. The problem is that, by law, the only energy companies that may form as an MLP are those in oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects. MLPs—in this case, the extraction industries—can access capital at lower costs and have other advantages that make them more attractive to private investment.

A simple, powerful way to level the playing field is to change this law and offer the MLP option to companies in renewable energy. That’s it. All the new and promising possibilities for energy production and development deserve to benefit from access to capital and private investment the way the older, established industries do. Changing the law about MLPs would do just that, clean and simple.

Back to top

Each of these five policies stands a chance of appearing, in some form, in bills that may be considered by the House and Senate in the coming year. We will work to increase those chances. It will be vitally important that we work with you to speak out in favor of action, because the status quo is unsustainable.

If we take any lesson from Sandy, let it be this: Sandy was just the beginning: if we do not act to reduce our carbonemissions, there will be more storms, including those that will be stronger and more destructive.

But also take this lesson: we have the power to change this. Are you ready to talk about solutions? We are.

Hurricane Sandy has generated a lot of discussion about climate change. As the debate heats up in the coming weeks, it’s going to be important that we have our facts straight.

See how you do on this quiz about some of the lessons we might learn from Sandy.

True or False: Climate change caused Sandy.

True or False: Sea level rise measured since 1900 contributed to the devastation of New York in the hurricane.

True or False: The same phenomena driving climate change increase the severity and frequency of storms like Sandy.

Beyond the environmental imperative, FCNL believes there is a moral imperative to act on climate change. This week, we joined over forty other faith groups who signed a letter urging the Presidential candidates to address the issue on the campaign trail and in policy proposals.

As part of our on-going efforts to renew the moral call to action on climate change, FCNL is proud to work with the interfaith community. This week, the faith community has released a letter to the Presidential candidates, and FCNL is thrilled to be one of the organizations to sign the letter.

The environmental groups have long dominated the climate change discussions. Empirically, there is nothing wrong with this, but we know from experience that broader-based coalitions tend to do better turning lobbying into action from politicians.

To that end, FCNL has begun focusing on the faith community’s perspective on climate disruption. It’s not simply that environmental degradation is, itself, inherently a wrong (though that’s also true); we also have a moral obligation to others on the planet and to future generations to begin to reduce our carbon emissions and to begin to slow the rate of climate disruption.

As a faith-based organization, FCNL is uniquely suited to make this argument. We are proud of our role working with these faith groups in creating this effort, and we’re proud to approach climate change from this perspective.

Presently, our number one focus is on renewing the conversation and on bringing a discussion of the environment and climate change back into the public discourse. This letter to the Presidential candidates is, we believe, a solid step in this direction.

We cannot continue to ignore this issue. We are united with the faith community in the perspective that we can, and must, take immediate action, and we are optimistic that this can begin the conversation again.

Read the press release below, and click to read the letter to the candidates in its entirety.

Press Release

Climate Change Absent from Presidential Race

President Obama and Governor Romney cannot address health of nation without addressing climate change

October 9 – To date, neither of the presidential campaigns have addressed the pressing issue of global climate change. In response to this glaring omission, 43 faith-based organizations issued a letter calling on President Obama and Governor Romney to address climate change, which many believe is among the greatest moral challenges of our time.

Rising temperatures, more frequent severe storms, and devastating droughts are impacting families and communities across the country. This past summer alone, more than 60 percent of the country experienced extreme drought conditions, which scientists confirm were amplified by climate change. This drought will result in higher utility prices, more home foreclosures, and decreased food production – all at a time when the country is just starting to recover from the recession.

Addressing climate change in a way that effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions, provides adaptation assistance for the most vulnerable around the world and ensures a future that is sustainable and sufficient to meet the basic human needs of all people is what communities of faith are looking for in a leader.

“Global climate change threatens human health, economic stability, and community well-being,” said Cassandra Carmichael, Director of the National Council of Churches’ Washington Office. “Both President Obama and Governor Romney have talked about their desire to help families, communities, and the country become stronger but they cannot do this successfully without addressing global climate change. We are calling on both candidates to lay out a clear vision for how they will prevent the worst impacts of climate change.”

The letter highlights that the time is now for both candidates to put forth a vision of health and wholeness for the United States and makes it clear that we can no longer separate the health of the nation from our ability to effectively address global climate change.

Letter to the Candidates

October 9, 2012

Dear President Obama and Governor Romney,

As representatives of the faith community, we call on you to make global climate change a primary issue in your campaign and to advocate for concrete action to prevent its worst anticipated impacts. In the last few years, extreme droughts in the US have impacted more than 60 percent of the nation and are expected to result in higher utility prices, increased home foreclosures, and even civil unrest in the developing world as a result of food scarcity. Rising sea levels, caused in part by unprecedented polar ice melt, are threatening coastal cities in the US and island nations around the world. Extreme droughts have led to famine conditions for more than 23 million in the Horn of Africa. And these impacts will only grow worse as the Earth’s climate continues to warm.

While we represent different faiths and communities, our religious teachings are unified in our call to care for God’s Creation and to love and care for our neighbors. Climate change presents a challenge to us, as people of faith, even as it presents a current and growing threat to the well-being of our communities and the future of the planet

For more than 25 years, we have acted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our own houses of worship and to educate our leaders about climate change and its impacts. While these personal and community actions are important, they are not enough. We need decisive, collective action with strong leadership at the community, national, and global levels to avoid the ever-worsening droughts, famines, intense storms, sea level rise and heat waves associated with a changing climate.

The time is now to address climate change.

We call for national leadership that recognizes the challenging reality ahead while advancing a vision of health and wholeness even in the face of these challenges. We believe this vision includes emissions reductions that will prevent the worst impacts of climate change; adaptation assistance for the most vulnerable in the United States and abroad; and a future that is both sustainable and sufficient to meet the basic human needs of all people.

Simply put, we need national leadership committed to proactive and ethical action in the face of a changing climate and a changing reality.

We hope that you and your campaign, and if elected your future Administration, will prioritize policies to address climate change and protect the world’s most vulnerable communities from its impacts. We are committed to working with you now and in the future to achieve these goals.

Sincerely,
The Catholic Health Association of the United States
Center of Concern
Church of the Brethren Advocacy & Peace Witness Ministries
Church World Service
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Interfaith Moral Action on Climate Change
Interfaith Power and Light
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish War Veterans of the USA
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
National Catholic Rural Life Conference National Council of Churches USA
Presbyterian Church (USA), Office of Public Witness
The Rabbinical Assembly
Union of Reform Judaism
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
The United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society
World Evangelical Alliance

State and Regional Organizations:

Arkansas Interfaith Alliance Arkansas Interfaith Power and Light
Arizona Ecumenical Council – Earth Care Commission
Arizona Interfaith Power and Light
California Council of Churches
Colorado Council of Churches
Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power and Light
Eco-Justice Ministries
Georgia Interfaith Power and Light
GreenFaith Interfaith Community for the Earth
Texas Impact
Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice in the National Capital Region
Voices for Earth Justice (MI)
Wisconsin Council of Churches
Wisconsin Interfaith Power and Light

Roger Sorkin, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, is the director of "The Burden," whose preview is below. The Burden is the first feature-length documentary to tell the story of how fossil fuel dependence threatens national security, and how the U.S. military is able to bolster a clean energy economy that will strengthen our national, economic, and environmental security.

Climate experts have been arguing that climate change has the potential to create and exacerbate violent conflict as resource scarcity becomes more severe. The United States military agrees. In their own words, here are the statements of fifteen military leaders, active and retired, on the role of climate in creating conflict.

Thomas Fingar

Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council

We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years ... We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests.

Brig. General Steven Anderson (ret.)

Former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus

Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.

Leon Panetta

Secretary of Defense

[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Robert Gates

Former Secretary of Defense

Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability.

General Gordon Sullivan (ret.)

Former Army Chief of Staff

Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.)

If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism ... The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe

General Anthony Zinni, United States Marine Corps (ret.)

Former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush

It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, US Navy (ret).

The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country ... Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution

Admiral John Nathman, US Navy (ret.)

Former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush

There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we're going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We've been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change."

Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, US Air Force (ret.)

"The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change."

General Paul Kern (ret.)

Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush

Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response

Brig. General Bob Barnes (ret.)

While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection - and the threat it poses - is real and growing

Vice Admiral Richard Truly, US Navy (ret).

Former NASA Administrator

The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we've dealt with in the past.

General Chuck Wald, US Air Force (ret.)

Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush

People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there's a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It's a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world."

Admiral Joseph Lopez, US Navy (ret.)

Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror."

The Pentagon

Operational Energy Statement

The volatility of oil prices will continue to be a budgetary challenge for the Department, and the realities of global oil markets mean a disruption of oil supplies is plausible and increasingly likely in the coming decades. The Services have already taken steps to certify aircraft, ships, tactical vehicles, and support equipment to use alternative liquid fuels, a prudent insurance policy against future oil supply disruptions and high prices.

The Army also notes that transporting fuel can be deadly in a war zone:

Today, fuel consists of over 50 percent of the load carried by supply convoys in Afghanistan. These convoys are especially attractive targets to adversaries, and are regularly attacked. Statistics show that the U.S. loses one Soldier for every twenty convoys through attacks consisting of improvised explosive devices and/or direct fire ambushes. There will be over 3,000 resupply convoys in 2012.

The Burden

Jose Aguto: Why do you think Congress is generally loath to speak about climate disruption?

Rep. Jim Moran: I think there are a host of factors responsible for the Congress’ opposition to discussing climate change.

Too many House members who took courageous votes on a climate change bill last session lost their seat in the 2010 elections. The new House majority is openly critical of the science that confirms the climate is changing. Economic concerns in the U.S. and around the world have taken focus off of almost every other issue, making it difficult for many in the public to have faith that a new greener economy will kick start a growth in jobs and prosperity. Until the anxiety of high unemployment has abated, it will be difficult to address this issue.

While Americans in general trust scientists, there has been a powerful misinformation campaign by some within the fossil fuel industry. We saw the same tactics from the tobacco industry in its heyday. Independent expenditures from the extraction industry and related fields make it very difficult for any Member to oppose their agenda. The money and force behind these misinformation campaigns have confused the public and made it difficult to move forward with legislation.

Further, even though extreme weather events have made the front page of newspapers, their linkage to climate change is not being addressed by the media.

What inspired you to introduce H. Res. 672? What role does faith play in your decision to speak out on the silence on climate disruption?

Despite the impediments, climate disruption is the most important environmental issue of our time. Climatic changes will impact virtually all of God’s species and the vulnerable will be more at risk. Some species are already facing extinction.

I introduced H. Res. 672 to raise awareness about the role of the faith community in responsible stewardship of our nation’s environment for long-term sustainability and a legacy we can leave for future generations. I hope that H. Res. 672 will break the silence in Congress on climate change. It is immoral for those in power to do nothing when overwhelming evidence should compel us to take action.

There is no issue that so disproportionately affects those already in need. Increasingly, extreme weather and resource scarcity will hit the poor hardest. I believe we must look out for everyone, and that no one sector of our society can be allowed to suffer so dramatically.

I am thankful that Pope Benedict has spoken out eloquently about climate change, so much so that he is also known as the Green Pope. He has said that “[t]he environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people, and the use we make of it entails a shared responsibility for all humanity, especially the poor and future generations.”

I support the position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which stated:

"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both 'the human environment' and the natural environment." But at the end of the day, we need more faith leaders to speak out and echo the call for environmental protection. The Bishops and parish priests must begin to talk about this issue. So many members of the Church are heavily involved in politics, it is just a matter of taking the next step on this particular issue.

What are your aspirations for the resolution?

I hope it will awaken the collective consciousness of this Congress to take action. Most of my colleagues are parents and grandparents, and want to see their children and grandchildren live in a world not burdened by significant changes to the environment. H. Res 672 is a call to action. It outlines areas where immediate work is required in four areas:

As the Catholic Bishops have said, this issue stretches beyond politics; it is a moral call to our obligation to the American people, our future, and our Earth.

How can the next Congress and the President move forward on meaningful actions to address climate disruption?

This call to action is not just a moral call, but a practical one. We have to dramatically and urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or else we will knowingly diminish God’s bounty and, to a certain degree, be responsible for needless suffering.

The poor and vulnerable in this nation and throughout the world are already experiencing the harmful effects of climate change. It will get far worse if we do not act.

I am also confident that as the predictive consequences of climate change become more apparent, the public will demand stronger policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

We have already made progress by adopting more fuel efficient standards for automobiles, regulating new major sources of carbon production and invested in research to develop cleaner, alternative sources of energy. By continuing this investment, we can generate far more renewable energy resources which result in a sustainable, not temporary, energy independence. We can accomplish this in ways that create jobs – green jobs in clean energy, energy efficiency, and natural resource management.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $20 billion in refundable renewable-energy and energy-efficiency tax credits that have doubled wind energy production. Last year, 30 percent of all new electric capacity in the U.S. was wind energy.

We know, and we are finding, that we will ultimately need to expand our use of solar, wind, and geothermal sources to meet our energy needs. The economics of starting up and creating distribution networks can be tough for these industries and the government should provide support to get them up and running. We gave, and in many cases continue to give, the extraction industries this type of assistance. This is a real, clear action the government can take.

Protecting the vulnerable, creating jobs, achieving sustainable energy independence, strengthening our national security, and as Pope Benedict has said, ensuring “the pacific co-existence of mankind,” are all practical reasons why Congress and the next President can and should address climate change.

There appear to be two dimensions/aspects that result in the passage of legislation: the moral component (it’s the just/fair/right thing to do) and policy component (how do we design and implement that belief). What can the faith community do to advance the prospect of climate legislation?

The faith community has the capacity to change the dynamic on legislation. It offers Members a different but compelling rationale to take action. Almost all faith traditions recognize humanity’s need to care for the Earth and all of creation.

People of faith recognize that the failure to be good stewards of the Earth disproportionally harms people living in poverty, the elderly and children and those least likely to be responsible for significant emissions of greenhouse gases.

This call to action resonates with people of all faiths and speaks to the human heart. By transcending the bitter partisans rhetoric we’re experiencing now, I hope that all members of Congress can work together to address this, the greatest challenge humanity is facing in our time.

Too many Americans appear disillusioned with Congress and the political process, to the extent where some have decided to disengage completely, believing their voices do not make a difference. Can you tell us how important and significant it is when they voice to you and other representatives their concerns?

Urging the nation’s leaders to act in the interests of the people must come from the people. Lawmakers come to Congress to advocate on behalf of the constituency they represent and it is critical that those who care about climate change relate their concerns to their representatives.

As Sam Daley-Harris, Founder and President of RESULTS said, “If the political will of the people is asleep at the wheel, then the political will of government is likely to be asleep at the wheel.”

I meet with high school students to discuss their concerns and their future. It came as a surprise to me that the top issue they consistently and persistently raise is not the high cost of a college education or their prospects for finding a job, but, rather concern with climate change. I find hope in colleges, too. There are students all over the country who recognize the severity of the issue and who really believe now is the time to address it. I’m optimistic about the power the youth have to push us toward change.

With H. Res. 672, we have an opportunity to prove that Congress can make a difference. But Congress will not enact the appropriate policies unless the American people tell us to take action.

Meet with your representative and let them know you care about the environment, our children’s future, and want action taken to address climate change.

Pray-in for the Climate
hosted by the

Interfaith Moral Action on Climate Change
January 15, 2013
Washington, D.C.

Interfaith Moral Action on Climate Change (IMAC) invites all people of good will to join them in “A Pray-in for the Climate” on January 15, 2013 in front of the White House. The event also honors the 84th birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his call to meet “the fierce urgency of now” on action towards justice. Super-storm Sandy, the drastic droughts in our corn country, record-breaking Arctic ice melt, and unheard-of floods in Vermont, let alone disasters in Australia, Russia, Pakistan and Africa, all warn us: the disruption of our planet will not wait for our “normal” political paralysis to end. Climate change impacts all peoples, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable. We need our political leaders to lead us away from the Climate Cliff.

For more information on the pray-in, please see this PDF.

Here’s a hint:

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans,” said former Governor Mitt Romney at the Republican National Convention in August. “And to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family."

"More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They're a threat to our children's future. And in this election, you can do something about it,” said President Obama at the Democratic National Convention. My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet. Because climate change is not a hoax.”

This was the entire discussion of the environment at either convention by the presidential candidates, even though both agree that climate change is a serious, human-caused phenomenon. A majority of those in the U.S. agree that climate change is a serious issue requiring urgent attention. Climate change is an environmental issue, but as long as it’s seen as “just” an environmental problem, politicians’ efforts to solve it are more likely to be half-hearted. Though both presidential candidates have been too silent on the issue, their comments at the conventions may represent a turning point in the debate.

Climate disruption is the most serious national security issue facing this country that isn't being talked about. Sometimes called global warming, climate change is catch-all term for what is happening to the Earth’s atmosphere. As the world industrialized, tremendous amounts of “heat-trapping” gases were released. These gases are called “greenhouse gases” because they create a “greenhouse effect”: they let the light from the sun into the Earth’s atmosphere but do not then let that heat escape. The cumulative capture without release of the sun’s heat causes climate disruption.

Climate disruption will result in an increase of “extreme events” such as heat waves; droughts; and an increased severity of hurricanes; tornadoes; avalanches; and blizzards. Climate change is having, and will continue to have, global consequences. Africa is estimated as the most vulnerable continent to climate change because of current stresses and low adaptive capacity. The Environmental Protection Agency is projecting that 75 million to 250 million people will experience increased water stress due to climate change. Projections indicate that access to food and agricultural production, especially in Africa, will be severely compromised by climate disruption.

Climate change affects everyone. The U.S. government declared more than 1500 U.S. counties "disaster" areas this summer due to drought caused by the second-hottest summer on record with little rain. People around the world are starting to feel the effects of climate disruption, and without action, it will not get better.

But our leaders, and those who wish to lead us, have only just begun to address this issue. There is much that the government could do to begin to slow the progression of climate disruption. This action will need to begin with a conversation between you and candidates for office. Ask the presidential candidates to talk about climate change and about their plans to preserve and protect the only Earth we’ve got.