There is a place where the trees breathe wind and the skies bring nourishing rain. There is a place where rivers supply food and flowers spout bursts of joy. There is a place that was created with love and beauty and a pulse. If you’ve seen Avatar lately you may be dreaming about the planet of Pandora, but I’m describing the very dirt on which you stand.

When I was younger my siblings and I practically lived in the forest behind our house. We built forts, climbed trees and unblocked the stream after storms. We only came in at the call of dinner from my mother, a woman who grew up learning from the woods and was sure that we were safe doing the same. We would run home through our self-made trails dirty and scratched, all from a good day’s work. Yes, we played video games and “house”, but we also had mud ball fights. There were also the days when we kayaked on the lake nearby. I remember being both frightened and intrigued by the lily pads at the end of the lake surrounded by a small inlet with hanging trees and sparkling silence. I built a connection with nature at a young age, and had a lot of fun doing so.

When I think about the environment today I hope that we don’t forget the beauty and connection we instinctively have with nature, God created this Earth to be cherished and enjoyed. My reaction, however, is my own realization that I must start thinking about that nature when I think about “environmentalism”. There are lots of lenses through which people connect with an environmental cause – global warming, climate change, save the whales, hunting & fishing rights, organic agriculture, protecting national forests and habitats, endangered species…whatever way that you look at the environment around us, thank you for caring. A need to reconnect with the environmental movement on a very personal and real level has been brewing in me for awhile. You might even call it a spiritual necessity.

Outside my window trees sway, rain falls and in the spring time flowers will bloom. The Pacific Northwest is my backyard. I love barbecues with fresh caught wild salmon and picking my own pumpkins for Halloween. I smile when I see the little trees popping up all over a clear-cut thanks to renewable forestry, and when I see an advertisement for Harbor 100 – a carbon neutral, 100 percent recycled paper product. I breathe deeply when I visit our temperate rainforest and when I step outside after a nourishing spring rain. My favorite place on Earth is this tiny tulip and daffodil bulb farm 20 minutes from my house – you could make anywhere beautiful with a few bunches of their fresh cut perfection. Each of these things makes my life happy and full. While I’m glad that environmentalism through climate change is being addressed worldwide, I think it’s also so important to remember what feeds the soul right where we are. For me, remembering that God created this world is the most influential environmental lobby I can think of. I think of our interconnection with the resources of the earth – food, shelter, water, joy and peace can all be found in the nature and wildlife that surround us. I can’t imagine giving away the earth for prosperity, indeed there is no such thing as prosperity without our natural environment.

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Feed your soul.

~Lana

This picture was taken in January, 16 months after Hurricane Felix. The communities on the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua are still struggling to recover. Scientists predict that should the globe continue to warm, we can expect fiercer and more frequent storms.

I guess I should not have been surprised when Palin came out and denied climate change.  This of course led to a delightful response from Al Gore.  And the blogosphere rejoiced…

So with the Copenhagen meetings climate change is a big topic of conversation.   To kick of the summit, the results of a recent poll were announced in which it was found that fewer Americans believe in climate change than did just six months ago (a fifteen point shift in just six months).  Coincidentally, I was speaking with a climatologist from Iowa State this past weekend, and I asked him if all the recent scientific reports (such as the 2005 IPCC report that unequivocally stated that climate change is indeed happening and 2007 IPCC report that stated that human produced carbon emissions play a role in it) have helped in shifting public opinion.  He told me it’s actually brought more people out to challenge it, especially from energy sectors.

I won’t delve into the discussion, you already know my thinking on it from here and here.  While I appreciate the public debate (I just wish it was more often based on facts instead of ideology, on both sides), I want us to think more about those who are poor and vulnerable (like this story on NPR this morning).  Often the debate is about protecting self-interests–energy consumption and energy independence, national security, economic strength, and so on.  While these are important issues, and may be excellent motivators to actually get something done, I think we fail to see that this is fundamentally a justice issue.  Those who are least responsible for climate change bear the brunt of its impact. They suffer from new disease vectors, fiercer and more frequent storms, changing weather patterns that disrupt crop cycles, among other things.  (For more on the impacts, see our Climate Change and Hunger Toolkit–a ready to go “program in a box” you can use to lead a forum or discussion on the issue.)

In short, whatever the case is about climate change, this topic also gives us a chance to talk about hunger and poverty, and our role in addressing them.  While it is inevitable that our own interests inform our commitment to any issue, I would hope that we can remember those who are on the front lines, those who are poorest and most vulnerable.

Someone recently asked me why, working in the field of world hunger, I was going to a conference on environmental justice. It’s not always an obvious connection, that between hunger and climate change. But a main reason ELCA World Hunger is concerned about climate change is that the poorest have the fewest resources to adapt and cope. The most vulnerable are at the greatest risk of suffering and hunger. If the rains don’t come as often anymore and your crop doesn’t grow, how will you eat? If the strangely frequent and severe storms damage your house, do you spend your small income on shelter or food?

But a picture is worth a thousand words, right? So check out this site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8390366.stm  It’s from the BBC and includes a picture of the globe with video clips from different countries, each one showing an impact of environmental strain and change. In particular, I found the clips from Bolivia, Egypt, and Iraq especially useful for clarifying how changing water supplies impact human life. The clips don’t directly connect the environmental issues to hunger, but they take you close enough to make the final hop an easy one.

In recognition of what’s happening in Copenhagen right now, watch some of the clips. And then, with your new-found inspiration, hold a workshop in your congregation or community to spread the word about how climate and hunger are related. The workshop materials and instructions are ready and waiting for you at www.elca.org/hunger/toolkits  We invite and welcome your voice in the fight against hunger!

-Nancy Michaelis

A lot of what I hear about climate change involves catastrophic statements about what will happen. Sea levels will rise, plunging cities and coastlines under water. Desertification will increase, causing human migration and wars over water. Severity and frequency of storms will increase, causing countless forms of destruction. And of course, the poorest, who have the fewest resources for adaptation, will suffer the most.

It’s all very scary, but it is also often tempered by future verb tenses and debate over the predictions’ plausibility. Even though the weather here in Chicago has been unusual this summer, it may just be a natural fluctuation. Besides, even if the climate is changing, Manhattan isn’t under water yet. It’s a slow process and no one can really predict how bad it will be. We have time.

Or perhaps not. Manhattan may not be under water, but Italy and Switzerland are moving. It seems the border between the two countries, established in 1861, was set along the ridge of a glacier. Now the glacier is melting, and so the line is moving. Climate change – happening right now – is changing the defined territories of two countries. 

Luckily, this particular case is not catastrophic, which I’m guessing is why I didn’t run across it as a front page headline. As reported by Discovery News, “Since the affected demarcation line runs through uninhabited peaks 13,000 feet above sea level, the measure would not force changes in citizenship.” In addition, it’s not happening on a highly valuable bit of land, and both countries have functional governments. So the politicians on both sides have very reasonably agreed to redraw the border, and have set in place a plan to deal with future changes. It would appear to be no big deal.

The understated reporting of this story (or did I just miss it?) surprises me. The issues and implications here are so potentially explosive. If it’s happening in Europe, where else? Where else in the world might climate change affect one country’s border with another? What happens to citizens living along the line? What happens when that line runs over an oil field, or a valuable rain forest, or a sacred burial ground? What happens when the countries involved do not have stable economies and rational governance? And even hate each other?

For now, the threat of climate-related issues do not appear to be obvious or imminent enough to compete with other problems. But as the climate change debates continue, I wonder what constitutes a winning argument. This particular border example – with so few consequences – isn’t enough.  How much drama will it take to really get our attention?

-Nancy Michaelis

Paul Hawken gave the commencement address for the University of Portland earlier this month, and it’s making the rounds. I thought it was brilliant. Here’s a link to the address.

I highly recommend reading Thomas Friedman’s April 11th Op-Ed column in the New York Times. The ELCA World Hunger staff has been talking a lot about climate change recently, and the disproportionate impact it has on those living in poverty. It’s not particularly encouraging.

So what fun to read Friedman’s article! I have to admit, I don’t know much about Costa Rica’s governmental structures or energy usage, which is a shame. Because as Friedman describes it, they are both innovative and hopeful. Apparently “it did something no country has ever done: It put energy, environment, mines and water all under one minister.” As a result, environmental, energy, and economic considerations have more balanced influence in policy decisions. And the result of that is that Costa Rica now gets some 95% of their energy from renewable sources and has reversed its deforestation. From what I can tell from a very quick check, they’ve also managed to do it while maintaining a reasonably stable economy.

Certainly Costa Rica’s opportunities and challenges are different than, say, the United States. But how hopeful to be given such an example!

I was on the Green Festival web site today (looking up the dates that it will be in Chicago – May 16-17) when I discovered Green Festival TV. In browsing the video clips, I ran across the following interview with Lester Brown. In 15 minutes, he does a nice job of explaining how things like climate change, food production, economics, and poverty are related, and why everyone’s urgent action is needed. I encourage you to take the time to watch the clip:

And if you happen to live in Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Washington DC, or San Francisco, you might also want to attend the Green Festival in your city. Seattle’s is this weekend! If you don’t live in those places, some of the highlights and lots of information are still available at the Green Festival web site, as well as the sites of Global Exchange and Green America (formerly Co-op America), who put on the festivals.

If you happen to be a person who plans events of any size, the video clip called “Greening the Green Festival” about how they minimize landfill garbage at the Green Festivals is pretty interesting and inspiring, too.

An interesting piece that was emailed to me:

March 23, 2009
Migrant or refugee — what’s in a name?
By LISA FRIEDMAN, ClimateWire

HARINAGAR, Bangladesh — Environmentalists call the two young men who sneaked into India from this coastal village “climate refugees.” Government officials call them “migrants.”
Shumitra calls them her sons.

Squatting on the porch of her mud and thatch home, Shumitra clutches a photograph of 15-year-old Topon and 27-year-old Jogodish and wonders if she will ever see them again. Unselfconsciously, she lets her orange headscarf fall away as she describes how her eldest left two years ago as work in the rice fields dried up. The other boy followed after a devastating flood in July drowned the year’s crops.

She is not aware that her sons and others like them are subjects of a fierce war of words. At issue is not whether climate change will be responsible for displacing millions of people this century. It’s what to call the victims.

The distinction is not just academic. Experts say it can have real-life implications for national budgets, international law and immigration policies of nations from America to India.
“What do you call these people? Are they refugees? That’s a very sticky issue,” said Koko Warner, who heads the Environmental Migration, Social Vulnerability, and Adaptation Section at the U.N. University in Bonn, Germany.

‘There’s a lot of defensiveness’
“Other countries don’t want to be responsible for more people. There’s a lot of defensiveness,” she said. “It can be a very contentious, threatening political topic.”

Environmental and aid organizations prefer “refugee,” evoking powerful images of men and women driven from their homes with only the clothes on their back. Activists and government leaders in vulnerable countries also insist it is accurate.

“If a family lost his house or capital, if he doesn’t have any place to get housing or buy food, he should go some other place. He’s a refugee. If it happened because of climate impact, then he’s a climate refugee,” said Sarder Shafiqul Alam, a research fellow at the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies in Dhaka.

“It’s not war with a gun. It’s war against climate calamity by local communities, so it’s a fight,” he said.

Opponents of “refugee” come from several corners. Western governments have shied away from the phrase for fear they will be called upon to pay a hefty price for the impact of decades of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The moment you say there are ‘climate refugees,’ a set of obligations come up, and that, I think, is a problem,” said Rabab Fatima, regional representative for South Asia at the International Organization for Migration in Dhaka.

“Some countries would like to push it. But then, the international community is still not in a position to address those politics,” she said.

‘Refugee’ puts the burden on developed nations
Human rights leaders also bristle at the term “refugee.” They argue that the word has a precise legal definition under the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees as someone who must flee because of persecution or a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

Cécile Pouilly, a spokeswoman at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, said that convention was hard-fought. She argued that any attempt to play fast and loose with linguistics, no matter how sympathetic the victims of climate change, would do a disservice to the world’s 11 million refugees fleeing brutal dictatorships, violence, repression and civil wars.

“What we fear is that by misusing the term, we will weaken the definition of ‘refugee,'” Pouilly said. “We’re already struggling.”

Pouilly and several researchers said they understand the desire to use vivid language rather than colder, more academic terms like “migrant” and “climate-induced migration” to describe the wrenching specter of 200 million people being forced from their homes by midcentury. Besides, they acknowledged, it’s hard to get politicians to act on intractable issues like reducing emissions until they are confronted with the stark human implications of ignoring the issue.
“Refugee” puts the onus for reducing emissions — and the responsibility for compensating the millions displaced by climate change — squarely on the shoulders of developed nations like the United States and members of the European Union. Ultimately, activists said, it challenges them to act.

“The idea that [other countries] would have a legal obligation to admit 150 million Bangladeshis or migrants from other nations … I don’t think that is fruitful. I think that will scare governments that are capable of responding,” said Kathleen Newland, who directs refugee policy at the Migration Policy Institute think tank in Washington, D.C.

Added Pouilly, “The word is used by environmentalists to push rich countries to do something on climate change, to use this ghost of millions of refugees on rickety boats arriving on the shores of their country. But there are others who say this is backfiring, that it is causing countries to build walls,” Pouilly said.

In India, which is busy constructing a fence along its porous, 2,500-mile border with Bangladesh, that is already happening.

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net.

David Creech

As you’ve no doubt been reading, David Creech is in Nicaragua learning about the effects of climate change on life. In keeping with that theme and bringing it closer to home, I have a suggestion: eat less meat. It’s not an original suggestion. Today, I’ve lifted it directly from The Sierra Club. They recently had a post on on their blog, The Green Life, which I thought made their case succinctly. You can click here to read the original, but I’ll quote the two paragraphs that I found most fascinating and actionable (and, actually, comprise most of the post):

I think I can fairly say that the loss of biodiversity in the world is something the media reports regularly. We hear about polar bears and how many other animals face extinction. We hear about how much rain forest is being cut down each day and what a loss that presents not only for the animals and plants that live there, but also the future of pharmaceutical discovery.

What I personally have heard less about is the loss of crop diversity. Here’s something I came across today on the Web site of the Global Crop Diversity Trust: “…of the 7100 varieties of apple cultivated in USA 100 years ago, 6800 have disappeared forever.”

We’re down to 300 varieties of apples here. That’s nearly a 96% drop! Of something we eat! They also say that about 165,000 crop varieties (all types of food) are currently endangered. It’s not boding well for food security in the world.

The Global Crop Diversity Trust site gives several reasons that crop diversity is dropping, and one of them is climate change. Rising temperatures and drought are not helpful to many crops, especially in places that already trend toward the hot and dry.

There are lots of ways that climate change affects hunger in the world. Killing off the things we eat is the most direct one I’ve considered.