Rev. Bear Endorses Uppsala Manifesto

Interfaith Leaders Sign Climate Change Manifesto of Hope

from Environmental News Service (ENS)

UPPSALA, Sweden, November 30, 2008 (ENS) - Faith leaders concluded their two-day Interfaith Summit on Climate Change in Uppsala on Saturday by signing a manifesto demanding quick and extensive reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the wealthy parts of the world.

Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish and Native American leaders signed the declaration that states, "We all share the responsibility of being conscious caretakers of our home, planet Earth. We have reflected on the concerns of scientists and political leaders regarding the alarming climate crisis. We share their concerns."

"The situation is critical," the manifesto states. "Glaciers and the permafrost are melting. Devastating drought and flooding strike people and ecosystems, especially in the South. Can planet Earth be healed? We are convinced that the answer is yes."

Church of Sweden Archbishop Anders Wejryd addresses the Interfaith Summit on Climate Change. (Photo by Magnus Aronson courtesy Interfaith Summit)

Hosted by the Church of Sweden, the interfaith leaders were welcomed with an opening address by Swedish Archbishop Anders Wejryd, who said, "We are not at this meeting to find special religious answers to the environmental crisis. We have to share the realities of technology, economy and politics with all people.

"We have gathered to deliberate on what we do with these facts as people of different religious traditions," said the archbishop. "As people of faith we are carriers of hope – or at least we should be. It is obvious that the world needs change before it is too late and we have a role to play in enabling a changed world-view and changed perspectives for people of the world and for ourselves."

The faith leaders held their summit and issued their manifesto on the eve of the United Nations' annual climate conference, held this year in Poznan, Poland from December 1 through 12. The Poznan meeting, which is expected to draw around 8,000 participants, is focused on advancing international cooperation on a future climate change agreement to govern the emission of climate-warming greenhouse gases after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

The future agreement is set to be finalized at the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark next December in time for countries to sign and ratify the document before 2012.

"As people from world religions, we urge governments and international organizations to prepare and agree upon a comprehensive climate strategy for the Copenhagen Agreement," the Uppsala Manifesto states. "This strategy must be ambitious enough to keep climate change below 2° Celsius (about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit), and to distribute the burden in an equitable way in accordance with the principles of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities."

Limiting warming to 2° Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures is essential to averting the worst effects of climate change, scientists say. Yet many environmentalists believe allowing the temperature to rise even that much would be disastrous. The global conservation organization WWF warns that a 2° Celsius temperature rise would bring droughts that will leave many people without safe, clean water, and destroy crops, causing widespread famine. Melting ice caps and glaciers would raise sea levels, leaving some Pacific island nations uninhabitable.

But the Uppsala Manifesto is entitled "Hope for the Future," and European Vice President Margot Wallstrom also took a hopeful view of the situation in her address to the Interfaith Summit on Friday.

"Combating climate change certainly makes sense. It makes sense because it is not only a challenge, but an opportunity. An opportunity to change the world and steer it towards sustainable development and prosperity for all," said Wallstrom.

By the year 2020, the European Union as a whole should cut its emissions by at least 20 percent compared to 1990 levels - and we will increase that figure to 30 percent if other developed countries make a similar commitment under a new international agreement, Wallstrom reminded the interfaith participants. The EU agreed to these targets in 2007 along with increased renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.

Interfaith leaders bless the Uppsala Manifesto (Photo by Magnus Aronson courtesy Church of Sweden)

"We are on track to get an agreement on the package in the coming weeks. If we can achieve this, we will be in a much stronger position to press for an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen next year," Wallstrom said.

But back in 2007, "no one foresaw the economic crisis that was about to engulf the world," the vice president said. "Faced with the present financial turmoil and economic recession, some EU governments - especially in Eastern Europe - have become unwilling to accept targets which they perceive as imposing further economic constraints on their industries. They question whether we can afford to take these drastic steps."

"My answer - to quote Barack Obama - is 'Yes we can!' In fact, we can't afford not to!" Wallstrom said.

She cited the 2006 report by UK economist Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change, which estimates that allowing climate change to continue unchecked would shrink the world's economic output by at least five percent and possibly as much as 20 percent per year if the most dramatic predictions come to pass.

"This dreadful prospect is exactly what a struggling global economy does NOT need," Wallstrom said. "By contrast, swift action to tackle climate change and to move to a low-carbon economy would cost only one percent of the world's Gross Domestic Product."

Hope for a climate agreement was strengthened when in Bali last December, the United States at last came on board. "This was a major breakthrough after years of resistance from the Bush administration," Wallstrom said, adding that President-elect Barack Obama "clearly has ambitions to combat climate change."

The Uppsala Manifesto calls for political leaders to reach an agreement during the preparations of the new global Climate Protocol 2009 on a strategy that is "sufficiently responsible and ambitious for the Earth to be saved for future generations."

But there are dissenting voices. Rajan Zed, a Hindu chaplain in northwestern Nevada and adjoining California, who delivered the historic first Hindu opening prayer in United States Senate in Washington, said today that the "grandiose" Interfaith Climate Manifesto signed at Uppsala lacks moral strength because of Hindus and other religions were not represented.

Other world religions, like Bahaism, Jainism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, and the Greek Orthodox Church also were not represented.

Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, said that it was commendable to see diverse religious leaders, religions and denominations coming together to bless environmental causes in Uppsala, but the organizers should have given adequate and fair representation to all major world religions.

Zed said he admires the Church of Sweden and Archbishop Wejryd for taking the leadership role in organizing this "much-needed" summit and thus "making religions climate friendly."

The Uppsala Manifesto will create a new framework for discussion about climate change after the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012 said one of the signers, Professor Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, director of the Jewish Studies program at Arizona State University.

"Today it is widely acknowledged that world religions have an important role to play in revisioning a sustainable future, because religions are the repositories of values and norms that guide human actions toward the natural world," said Tirosh-Samuelson. "Through cosmological narratives, symbols, rituals, ethical directives, and institutional structures, religions shape how we act toward the environment."

"Hence," she said, "all attempts to transform our environmental attitudes so as to generate a sustainable world must include understanding of world religions and cooperation with religious people."

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

Fr. Bear Blasts Proposed Changes to Interior and EPA Regulations

Excuse me for the interruption, but can this be right? The US people elect a new president, and the old one issues potentially binding regulations on his way out to undermine the Endangered Species Act?

From the Friday, 11/21 Washington Post:

The Interior Department wants to revise the application of the Endangered Species Act. The Environmental Protection Agency wants to do the same with the Clean Air Act. If what's being proposed goes through, air quality in and around national parks, and threatened plant and animal species, would be imperiled. President-elect Barack Obama might be saddled with policies that run counter to his environmental vision.

Interior's action on the Endangered Species Act was the result of listing the polar bear in May as "threatened" under that law because of climate change. The statute was never intended to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet and melting the Arctic ice habitat of polar bears. So Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed stripping the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies of their roles in consulting with federal departments on building projects that are "likely to adversely affect" a listed species.

The rationale that their experience complying with the Endangered Species Act gives agencies enough expertise to determine for themselves whether a project is likely to harm a species, not just polar bears, is flawed. Without those protective services in the consultative loop, there will be no check against the ambitions of agencies that want to complete projects -- and no safeguard for threatened and endangered species in the agencies' path.

From Channel 7 KGO-TV (ABC) in San Francisco:

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- As the Bush administration was opening up new oil leases in the Arctic last year, government scientist Steven Amstrup was called to Washington to testify on the impact of global warming on polar bear habitats. "Within the next 50 years or so that population of polar bears could decline by approximately two-thirds," Amstrup told the committee.

The chair of the House committee that heard the testimony said the new drilling would further threaten the polar bears. But under changes proposed by the Bush administration, testimony like Amstrup's would be irrelevant. Plans for any project on public lands could be approved without considering the impact on endangered wildlife.

"It's basically saying 'we aren't going to consider science, it's all going to be driven by politics,'" Deputy Executive Director of the Sierra Club Bruce Hamilton said. "To come in at the 11th hour and say, 'oh, we forgot to screw the Endangered Species Act before we leave office, let's make sure we do that...'"

Hamilton calls it a disservice to the American public.

Yes, indeed, brothers and sisters, that may well be, but what Hamilton calls a "disservice" could put us ice bears and hundreds of other natural beings out of our ancestral homes. We're not talking about some minor inconvenience here -- we're talking forced displacement, habitat destruction and eco-cide.

President Bush, no thank you! I can't use your eco-fascist groove thang.

As Malcolm X has said, we didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us. We animals didn't ask to be discovered, visited, photographed or displaced by you humans. We didn't think destroying the planet's forests, polluting its air, and drilling for oil in ANWR were such great ideas, among others. The least you could do is to leave some pretense of fairness in your environmental laws.

(Yeah, I said it... )

Sincerely,

Fr. Paul R. Bear, PBB (Polar Bear Blogger)
Artic Snowfields
Greenland/North Pole
http://www.carbonconfession.org/

Confess carbon sins -- embrace 12 steps to Carbon Forgiveness
Step #1: admit you are a selfish user of global resources

The 12 Steps of Carbon Awareness

The 12 Steps of Carbon Awareness

1. We admit that we are selfish users of the earth's limited resources. Standing alone, we feel powerless to stop our wasteful ways. We resolve to manage our lifestyles more effectively, to address the rapidly mounting ecological crisis.
2. We believe that through increased social awareness we can reduce our individual and collective carbon footprint.
3. We have decided to step up our social activism until such time that global warming is effectively stabilized and reversed.
4. We will conduct a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves and our behavior together on this planet.
5. We will reveal the exact nature of our wrongs to the natural and social world.
6. We resolve to overcome the persistent defects of character that result in our imposing an excessive carbon burden on the planet and other human beings.
7. We invite other conscious consumers and natural beings to help us overcome our personal and collective shortcomings.
8. We will engage in a regular program of study and inquiry to understand all the persons, natural beings and planetary processes we may have harmed and disrupted, and to the extent possible, we commit to making amends to them all.
9. We will make direct amends to nature and other people injured by reckless use of resources wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. We will continue to take personal inventory, and when we are wrong, we will promptly admit it.
11. We will look within ourselves and our communities to mobilize a collective response that is fully commensurate with global warming and other pending ecological threats.
12. Having achieved profound clarification and inspiration through these steps, we will also carry this message to other compulsive consumers. By our example and leadership in increasing our social activism and changing our destructive lifestyles, we will encourage them to practice these principles in their affairs as well.

If you are are guzzling oil compulsively and can't stop, the first step to recovery is to admit that you are a selfish user of the world's resources, and that you need help. Until we admit we have a problem, we can't make progress.

If you wish to divest your Hummer and unburden yourself of your carbon sins, confess to Fr. Paul R. Bear at CarbonConfession.org and visit the Tree of Carbon Forgiveness for absolution.

Do you have a "carbon sin" to confess?

Do you have a "carbon sin" to confess?

Common Carbon Sins:

- Driving a gas guzzler
- Taking unnecessary personal car trips
- Failing to car pool
- Failing to take mass transit
- Using too much heat or air conditioning
- Buying a house that is too large
- Failing to us a programmable thermostat
- Overconsumption of clothes and footwear, when you already have plenty to wear
- Leaving lights on all over the house
- Using the dryer when you could use a clothesline
- Using disposable paper OR plastic bags, when you could have used a reusable canvas bag- Printing large documents on only one side of the paper
- Using virgin paper when you could have used recycled paper
- Flying or driving a long way to meetings where little or nothing is accomplished- Throwing away recyclables
- Using incandescent bulbs when you could use compact fluorescent bulbs

If you wish to unburden yourself of your carbon sin, confess to Fr. Paul R. Bear at CarbonConfession.org and visit the Tree of Carbon Forgiveness for absolution.

European Bishops publish report on climate change

GENEVA -An expert group set up by COMECE last January and chaired by the former EU-Commissioner Prof Franz Fischler yesterday published its report.

The document: 'A Christian View on Climate Change; underlines the huge challenge that climate change represents for mankind. It calls on European leaders to anchor their climate change policies in ethical thinking, based on inter-generational justice and solidarity towards countries of the South. The experts also call on the Church and on Christians to show an example by adopting life styles based on moderation.

It must be recognised that the fight against climate change is first of all a problem of public ethos. It will be hard to solve without challenging certain ways of organising society, without questioning the ways we live together and the value system of civil society. In order to convince citizens to fundamentally change their way of thinking and living, political leaders should turn to profound ethical reflection and debate.

According to the report, this reflection could be based on Christian theology which has developed interesting ideas on this topic. Above all, the values and principles of the social teaching of the Church - global justice, disposition towards the weakest, subsidiarity, solidarity and responsibility for the common good - could allow climate change policies to be assessed.

The authors of the report emphasise the fact that climate change is especially an issue of intra- and inter-generational justice. Consequently, they call on the European Union to take up the leadership and to raise its voice for the developing countries and for future generations who bear or will bear the highest burden of climate change.

The authors underline the fact that the EU bears a special responsibility for combating climate change, in view of its technological and financial means and its experience with cooperative action. The EU should show the example and convince all actors concerned of the necessity of protecting the Earth's climate.

The report recalls that climate change is but one symptom of an unsustainable way of life, modes of production and patterns of consumption that have evolved in the industrialised world but which are not sustainable in future.

It calls on citizens to question their own lifestyles that are too dependent on material goods and to base them much more on cultural and relational goods. In fact, our lifestyles should be based on voluntary 'moderation', a central virtue that should be understood as having the aim, not of diminishing, but rather of supporting a higher quality of life and a greater reason to rejoice.

The Catholic Church and all the Christians are best placed to propagate such changes in lifestyles, through concrete proposals and by their modest examples. In order to contribute to the debate on Climate Change, the COMECE Bishops officially decided on 23 November to set up an ad hoc Working group on "EU Climate Change Policies and Christian Lifestyle". The Working group, which consists of 10 European personalities from Politics and Science, will submit its report to the COMECE Bishops on the occasion of their Plenary Assembly, on November 12-14 next. The full report will be available at www.comece.org

30 October 2008

© Independent Catholic News 2008

Metaphorical Icebergs?

Hooray, the humans are deconstructing metaphorical icebergs and decolonizing their minds!!

Being a bear of little brain, I can't tell if this will stop the melting trend -- and the breakup of the real, actually existing icebergs -- but it's nice to see at least someone is paying attention...

Climate Change Is Changing Theology
Theologians Consider the Shifts Needed in Thinking and Action

GENEVA, 30 October 2008 (LWI) –"Climate change is opening up horizons that are deeply spiritual, theological and cosmic inscope. [It] may literally be melting icebergs but it also exposes metaphorical icebergs of how God, human beings and the rest of creation have been conceptualized in ways that contribute to the injustices that have only increased under climate change."

This observation from a background paper prepared by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) Department for Theology and Studies (DTS) set the stage for a consultation of biblical scholars,theologians and ethicists working in this area, 2-4 October, in Geneva.

Background information for the consultation included the grassroots survey initiated by DTS to get response to ordinary people’s theological questions about climate change, and the related extensive adaptation and mitigation work that the LWF Department for World Service (DWS) field programs have long been pursuing with local communities. (The LWF survey is presented in the LWI special edition titled, "Climate Change - Facing Our Vulnerability", available online at: www.lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/OCS/LWI-2008-PDF/LWI-200805-EN-low.pdf )

Dr Sigurd Bergmann who teaches at the Norwegian University ofScience and Technology in Trondheim, Norway, emphasized the need for a "spatial turn" in
theology, taking Earth seriously as "ourhome where the Holy Spirit takes place."

Such a spatial turn resonates with how indigenous people view the sacred manifesting itself in space, added Rev. Tore Johnsen from his own Sami perspective as a pastor in the Church of Norway. He noted that indigenous people worldwide were the most vulnerable to climate changes, and they do not separate
nature and human beings as in much of Western theology.

Johnsen advocated pursuing theology within a "circle of life" that includes God, human beings and the rest of creation, proposing how this both relates to and revises traditional Christian understandings.

Spiritual Resources

Giving an account of what his students heard when they went out to local communities using the LWF survey, Dr George Zachariah,who teaches at the Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute in Chennai, India, focused on the spirituality of those displaced from their land and livelihood because of climate change. He argued that many prevailing climate change discourses were an attempt to "absolve the sins of neo-liberal capitalist plunder," and called for attention to the spiritual resources of subaltern communities that can "decolonize our minds, our faiths, our communities, and our planet."

Is there a theological basis for "carbon sin"?

I know that many out there will find the idea of a blogging Polar Bear quite ridiculous , and some many will also think I don’t have the appropriate credentials to hear confessions of so-called “carbon sin.” Fair enough, but everything must start somewhere.

So I’d be interested in your thoughts are about the idea of "carbon sin" and our shared spiritual or social responsibility for protecting the environment. Some may think these ideas are completely bogus, but from where I sit, it seems like an elementary matter of decent behavior and social justice. You humans have so many different faiths and ideologies that it's difficult for a bear of little brain to sort it all out.

However, as I surf the web from my outpost here along the Artic Sea, I’ve run across quite a few good web sites that provide useful information about the theology of conservation and environmental stewardship. While I haven’t found many sources that specifically discuss “carbon sin,” the idea seems entirely consistent with many religious. spiritual and secular traditions. And I believe it's fair to say that regardless of spiritual belief, as a normative matter, we live here on earth as part of a community, with mutual obligations and responsibilities to each other.

As pointed out in the Guardian last April:

Most of the world's mainstream faiths have at their core a deep respect for nature, but over hundreds of years many have developed an ambivalent attitude towards ecology and the pressures put on the earth by humans. Church leaders have largely stayed silent on the extinction of species and natural capital and have concentrated their ethical teachings on the need to relieve human poverty. But the reality of impending climate change and the effects it will have on the poor is concentrating minds and causing many to fundamentally reassess their understanding of man's place in the world.

As long ago as 2001, the US Catholic Bishops spoke out strongly about the need to address global climate change.

“{A}t its core, global climate change is not simply about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. Rather, global climate change 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. It is about our human stewardship of God’s creation and our responsibility to those generations who will succeed us…. As people of faith, we believe that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect. It unites us as one human family. If we harm the atmosphere, we dishonor our Creator and the gift of creation.” (Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, U.S. Catholic Bishops, 2001)

Testimony from the US Catholic Conference from last June to the Congress squarely makes the case for a fundamental change in direction in U.S. policy. In their statement, the bishops emphasize that rich countries should take the lead, out of concern for protecting both the environment, and for protecting the interests of poor and low-income people around the planet, whose lives will be disrupted also by climate change.

According to John Carr, Secretary of the Department of Social Development and World Peace for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, there is a “moral responsibility to care for creation” -- which I assume includes polar bears like me.

The religious leaders here today share an abiding love for God’s gift of creation and the biblical mandate and moral responsibility to care for creation. As people of faith, we are convinced that “the earth is the Lord’s and all it holds.” (PS 24:1) Our Creator has given us the gift of creation: the air we breathe, the water that sustains life, the climate and environment we share--all of which God created and found “very good.” (GEN: 1:31) We believe our response to global climate change is a sign of our respect for God’s creation and moral measure of our nation’s leadership and stewardship.

A useful web site on environmental stewardship for those in the Catholic tradition is the Catholic Conservation Center, which is chock full of references to church teachings regarding conservation and the Environment.

Sister Marjorie Keenan , RSHM, in her essary "From the Garden to the City," explains that the basis for environmental stewardship is spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Again and again, the Catechism reminds us that creation is good, calling it a serious mistake to deny it. Creation shares in the very goodness of God. It is a gift, an inheritance entrusted to our care [299]. To care for creation, we must respect the particular goodness of every creature and avoid "any disordered use of things that would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment" [339].

In his essay, Catholicism and the Natural World, which appeared in The Catholic Faith 5, no. 6 (November/December 1999), Thomas Storck explains the relationship between sin and environmental stewardship. The passage is worth quoting at length, because of what it says about unbridled consumerism vis a vis the environment.

As Catholics we must try to make our attitude toward our fellow creatures that of Holy Scripture, which eloquently speaks of animals, plants and even ice and snow or clouds and lightning, as praising God simply by their existence.

"God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other. "(340)

The system of “interdependence of creatures” is what we generally call nature. Nature is simply the system of natures. Each created thing, sun and moon, large tree and little flower, has what we call a nature, that is, a whatness: each is a distinct and different kind of thing. As we saw above, it is by being itself in its own integrity that a thing is good. But none of these individual goods exists entirely by or for itself, “no creature is self-sufficient.” Thus even though all created thing praises God simply by existing, they also exist “in the service of each other.” Plants make use of the sun, rain and minerals from the soil; animals eat plants and other animals and
use wood or grass or sand to make nests or other dwellings. So while it is good to allow animals and plants to live their own life, for of themselves they praise God, it is also good to cut down trees to construct buildings needed for mankind's use or to eat plants and animals, since they exist also to serve us and each other.

According to the Deistic concept of creation, created things would exist solely for our use, and even for our misuse. But since each created thing praises God by being itself, we cannot use them except in our genuine service and for our genuine welfare. It is as if we employed a servant who, whenever he was not actually serving us, spent His time worshipping before the Blessed Sacrament. Would we dare call him from this holy work to help us in something immoral or even frivolous? We can consider our use of the natural world analogously. Since each created thing blesses and praises God in its natural state, simply by existing, we ought not to take away that
praise from God unless we have good reason.

For natural things are not simply at our disposal, but exist “to complete each other, in the service of each other.” If we use them for frivolous reasons, or for things which ultimately are harmful to human society, then we are not using them in our service, but to our hurt. The mere piling up of consumer goods, the spending of huge sums on unworthy objects, our insatiable appetite for amusements — are any of these sufficiently important to justify our taking away things of the natural order from their work of praising God?

As Pope John Paul 11 wrote in Centesimus Annus: "It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards “having” rather than “being,” and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself." (no.36)

The gravity of sin involved in misusing natural objects doubtless depends on many factors, but one can hardly deny the existence of some sin.

Pope Benedict has spoken strongly in favor of environmental stewardship. At a Vatican conference on climate change last April, Pope Benedict XVI urged bishops, scientists and politicians to "respect Creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development, according to the Guardian, "Protect God's creation: Vatican issues new green message for world's Catholics," 04-27-07.

The Pope's message followed a series of increasingly strong statements about climate change and the environment, including a warning earlier this year that "disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence and vice versa.”

More recently, in December, 2007, however, the pope criticized those who he thinks may be overly zealous about global warming.

“We need to care for the environment. It has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. .."

So far, so good. However, the Pope also said:

“...Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man... It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.”

See: The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom – Daily Mail, 12-13-07.

I have no beef about “prudence” when it comes out to carrying out environmental assessments.
And I sure don't consider myself a “prophet of doom.” But I am highly concerned about the unfolding situation that puts us ice bears on the brink of extinction and is carving a warm water channel right through the Artic. It reminds me of what the pig said to the hen about breakfast - "For you, the eggs are a modest contribution, but for me, the bacon is a major commitment. "

So as I'm swimming around looking for fish and seals, I can't help worrying about the consumer society, the huge political might of the energy companies, and lagging response of the the American people and their political system.

As your Dr. Martin Luther King has said, there is such a thing as being too late. We must choose in this crucial moment of history.

Humbly submitted,

Fr. Paul R. Bear
carbonconfession.blogspot.com

PS The Guardian also noted that the religious organizations of the world could put substantial financial muscle behind a campaign for ethical investment in environmental justice, if they choose to:

A survey by US bank Citigroup found that the 11 major faiths now embrace 85% of
the world's population and are the world's third largest group of financial investors. In the US the United methodist church pension fund alone is worth $12bn-$15bn (£6bn-£7bn). Total investment of US churches is nearly $70bn. Switching to ethical investments would be hugely significant.

I'm not sure if they'll let polar bears own stock, but I'd sure like to vote for the proxy resolution on that!!