Energy companies are bombarding us with television commercials that claim hydrofracking, the controversial form of drilling for natural gas, should be allowed in New York State to increase America’s energy security. 

We recently learned that oil and gas companies are making special efforts to bring their message to the Jewish community.  According to a report from the JTA, these companies have recruited Jewish leaders to support their interest in expanded drilling for fossil fuels with a new organization named the Council for a Secure America. 

The energy industry is targeting Jewish leaders because claims that fracking will make America more secure are persuasive to Jews, who worry about America’s dependence on Arab oil.  We understand that fracking is a dangerous and dirty method of extracting natural gas that threatens our land, air and water.  But we wonder whether the trade-off is worth making.  Is this a case in which Jewish self-interest should trump other concerns?  

Fortunately, there is no trade-off to make.  America’s energy security does not depend on fracking.  Despite the misleading claims of the industry, more drilling will not increase energy security.  In fact, opening New York State to fracking for natural gas will make no difference in the short term and will stand in the way of investment in renewable energy that offers the only hope of increasing long term security.

Currently America imports over 11 million barrels of petroleum per day.  But natural gas is a different story.  America has plenty and does not depend on foreign sources.  In fact, due to a glut, prices have fallen so low that fracking is a losing proposition.  The industry desperately wants to export natural gas to Asia, where prices and profits are higher.

What about the long term?  Cheerleaders for natural gas claim that we have enough for 100 years, but these estimates are wildly exaggerated.  They are based on unrealistic assumptions that consumption will not increase and that drilling will be allowed everywhere, including environmentally sensitive areas.   More realistic studies project the gas will run out in less than 50 years, even if drillers gain unrestricted access to all deposits.   While they peddle these projections, the same cheerleaders are pushing Americans to use more gas than ever by substituting gas for oil in the transportation sector.   But building new infrastructure based on natural gas will only lock us into the same dependence we now have on oil.

Even if we could depend on an unlimited supply of domestic natural gas, would it improve our security?  Surely not.  Burning fossil fuels, including oil, gas, and coal, is the main cause of climate change.  And that means insecurity.   The World Economic Forum recently found that 1,000 experts from industry, government, academia and civil society view rising greenhouse gas emissions as one of the three greatest threats to global stability.   And a National Research Council study for the CIA warns that climate change will have serious implications for national security in the coming decade.  Among the negative impacts worldwide, this report predicts conflict over water in the Middle East.

The way to insure America’s energy security is to convert our economy from dependence on fossil fuels to renewable solar and wind energy.  As President Obama said in his inaugural address, “The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise."

Through a combination of improvements in energy efficiency and investments in renewables, America can become energy independent.  A study by Mark Delucchi and Mark Jacobson, featured in Scientific American, concluded that with aggressive policies the entire world could be powered by wind, water and solar resources by 2030.  Even if that is overly optimistic, it makes no sense to invest in new infrastructure for outdated fossil fuels when we could put the same money into renewables.

New investments in renewable energy will also strengthen the bonds between the US and Israel.  After the Arab oil embargo of 1973, federal policy briefly supported solar energy.  Between 1984 and 1991 Luz International, an Israeli company, constructed nine solar power plants in California that continue to operate today.  This year, Luz, reborn as BrightSource, will complete a plant in the Mojave Desert that will power a quarter of a million homes.  That’s not all. Better Place is the world leader in establishing the infrastructure to support electric cars.  Arava Power Company, developer of nine solar fields in Israel, is taking its know-how to Europe.   Through the US-Israel Energy Cooperative Agreement the two countries are again jointly supporting the development of cutting edge technologies.    

Governor Cuomo has an important decision to make about whether to allow fracking in New York.  Increasing America’s energy security is important.  But despite industry claims, that’s not what fracking will accomplish.  Jews who care about energy security should let the Governor know we want him to ban fracking and put in place policies that will make New York the nation’s leader in renewable energy.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/fracking-not-answer-energy-security

Published June 4, 2012 by The Sallan Foundation: Useful Knowledge for Greener Cities

Foundation Communities, the largest provider of low income housing in Texas, offers tenants the opportunity to participate in Saving Green. The program introduces tenants to simple behavior changes such as adjusting thermostats, unplugging appliances and changing light bulbs. According to Stephanie Perrone-Freeborg, Director of Green Operations, on average the 500 enrolled tenants have reduced their electricity use by 20%.

Right here in New York City students in seven Yeshiva University residence halls participate in an annual competition to cut their electricity use. Michael Winkler, Director of the Office for Energy and Sustainability, reports that this competition resulted in a 15% reduction the first year and additional savings in each subsequent year.

These two initiatives signal that complicated and expensive building upgrades are not the only way to reduce energy use because changing behavior can result in significant cuts. In fact, in head to head comparisons behavior change programs have sometimes been more effective than conventional projects. For example, a study comparing energy use in four schools in Colorado found that a school with a traditional building used less electricity than a new LEED certified school due to staff and student behavior (Schelly & Cross, 2010).

Why were these efforts successful when so many efforts to persuade people to change their energy behavior seem ineffective? As an environmental psychologist, I think the answer to this question is obvious. In my experience, many efforts to change behavior are just not serious. Typically, tenants are handed a flyer and invited to a meeting where they are told about the many ways they can help the environment. No one should be surprised that this superficial effort does not make a difference.

In contrast, in Saving Green, Texas tenants are invited to participate in a series of three workshops that address how to save money on utilities, transportation and food and after each session tenants make a formal commitment to change specific behaviors. Following the workshops they are offered the option to sign up for a home visit during which a trained volunteer performs a walk-through and suggests energy saving measures. Tenants also have the option to participate in a four-month, energy-saving contest where they give permission for the local utility to analyze their electricity usage and include the results in data reported to Foundation Communities.

What makes Saving Green an effective behavior-change program? First, Saving Green takes tenants' interests and motivations into account by addressing several ways to reduce household expenses. The information provided is relevant. Second, it is offered in an engaging and interactive format utilizing materials developed by Enterprise Communities for low income tenants. Third, it targets specific, measurable changes that tenants can make right away. Tenants are encouraged to make a commitment to take action — a technique that is known to increase the likelihood that they will follow through. Fourth, tenants are provided with feedback about the results of their actions. Finally, Saving Green is only one component of Foundation Community's comprehensive sustainability program and tenants know their efforts are actively supported by management.

Our understanding of how to influence people's behavior around energy is growing rapidly. To review the basics of how to design an effective initiative, I recommend Doug McKenzie Mohr's book on Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM). Mohr lays out the key steps in creating a serious behavior change intervention: Uncovering barriers and benefits, selecting behavior change tools, piloting, and evaluation.

The first step in CBSM is scoping out current behaviors and attitudes of the target audience and identifying obstacles that may be in the way of behavior change. The importance of investigating potential obstacles was brought home to me when I served as consultant on Living Green, a project of the Supportive Housing Network of New York. In conjunction with a large Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) program, Ariel Krasnow, Director of Greening Housing Initiatives, with the assistance of Johanna Rose Walczyk and Sally Larsen, designed a pilot behavior change initiative tailored to the needs of tenants in supportive housing. I urged the Network to conduct a focus group with the staff of each building to inform the selection of specific behaviors to target. In a discussion with the staff at one building they learned tenants were not turning off their PTAC (packaged terminal air conditioning) units because many units lacked knobs. No amount of programmatic education could be expected to overcome this physical obstacle to implementing energy-saving behavior change.

McKenzie-Mohr and other experts emphasize that there are many different ways to influence people's behavior. In selecting among behavior change strategies change agents must consider the nature of the behavior to be changed. For instance, purchasing a new refrigerator is an indirect way to reduce energy use. The buyer must be influenced to make one decision and s/he is done. In contrast, curtailment of energy use may require repeated actions to turn off appliances and load management actions such as changing the time of energy use may require changes in other activities of daily life. Sometimes we want people to recognize less energy intensive options as desirable. These are known as lifestyle changes. Each type of behavior change takes place in a different setting, involves different obstacles, and must be addressed with a tailored strategy.

Behavior change tools and techniques are based on insights about human behavior. Past efforts to change energy use behavior often rested on narrow assumptions about human motivations. A review of programs implemented by utilities in California found most were based on a perception of human beings as economic actors who make decisions based on calculation of financial returns expected from investments in equipment, even though we know from our own experience that money is not our only motivator. Frequently, the prospect of future savings fails to motivate people at all and when economic incentives do not work other approaches must be employed.

What type of insights provide a basis for a behavior change strategy? One is that humans are social beings who make most decisions about how to act based on what we see others do. An eye-opening study conducted by Aronson and O'Leary found that 67% of students entering the shower room in a university fitness center would turn off the shower while soaping up if they saw two other people engaging in this water-saving behavior. This study spotlighted the power of social norms to influence the behavior of complete strangers. Since home energy use takes place in private, harnessing the power of social norms to influence tenant behavior often depends on finding ways to making energy-saving behavior visible to others. One strategy now being employed by electric utilities that harness the power of social norms is to send out bills that show customers how their energy use measures up to that of their neighbors. In the right circumstances it is possible to achieve a similar effect by publishing the names of tenants who have pledged to reduce their energy use, asking tenants to serve as spokespersons for efficiency measures, and posting charts in the lobby showing the energy use of an entire building over time.

Another useful and related insight about human behavior is that people are motivated by participation in a group. This is one of the reasons that Green Teams have been recognized as essential components in corporate sustainability initiatives. In David Gershon's Eco-Teams, small groups of neighbors support each other to implement behavior changes based on the Low Carbon Diet. Participants in Portland reported average household reductions of carbon emissions of 22%.

It is also important to recognize that changing tenant behavior takes place within a system. Tenants live in a building and their behavior is influenced by the actions of management. Obviously management can do a great deal to remove obstacles — both physical (like the PTAC knobs) and social (such as lack of trust between tenants and building staff or owners). Tenants are more likely to adopt new behaviors desired by management if the system supports the change. This means that initiatives to change tenant behavior must also address how to change the behavior of building staff. Changing employee behavior is an area that has received more attention than has tenant behavior. A helpful place to begin is with an approach developed by Jerry Dion's team at the Department of Energy which advises addressing how roles, rules and tools can be employed by organizations to incorporate the goal of reducing energy use.

What can we hope for with the smart application of the right behavioral strategies? Overall, studies estimate that US households could reduce their energy demand by 20–30%. Many of the most effective changes are low or no cost. Whether they require one-time purchasing decisions, use of available technology, or adoption of new daily habits, human behavior is the key to these savings. Researchers and practitioners are increasingly focused on how to achieve the reductions in energy use represented by this behavioral wedge. (Picture a pie chart of our total energy use. The slice that can be eliminated through behavior change is the behavioral wedge.) Just this past December, over 700 people attended the fifth annual Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference to explore how to make these reductions a reality. Initiatives to engage tenants in achieving the potential of the behavioral wedge will be successful if they are comprehensive, serious efforts that draw on what we already know about what works to change human behavior.

When I tell engineers that changing tenant behavior is a good way to save energy, they tell me that it's a very hard thing to do. I tell them that as a psychologist, I could never do what they do, but I think it is easier to change people's behavior than to construct a building. Here's my takeaway for getting tenants involved in saving energy: Don't just hand out a flyer. Do it right and it will work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mirele-b-goldsmith-phd/my-fracking-nightmare-jewish-dream-interpretation_b_1325282.html

I had a dream about hydrofracking. The dream did not come totally out of the blue. I had stayed up too late talking about how Jewish summer camps in the Poconos and the Catskills are threatened by this destructive form of drilling for natural gas. But I was not aware of the depth of my own feelings.

In my dream I was at a banquet. Off to the side, a group of respectable, well-dressed men and women were standing and talking. Suddenly, as I watched, one man reached up and began groping the breasts of the woman standing in front of him. I was shocked and I didn't know what to do, but quietly I began to "tsk, tsk" in disapproval. After a moment, the people around me joined in. After a few moments of hesitation, I called out: "You shouldn't be doing that -- we can all see you!"

I bolted awake with the terrible feelings that accompany a nightmare. My heart was pounding and I felt frightened. I knew right away that the dream was about hydrofracking. The woman was the violated earth, and I was the powerless bystander, unable to protect her. I was devastated.

Hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, is only one of many ways that human beings violate the earth, but as with any one of these travesties, the closer you get and the more you know about it, the more awful it is. Hydrofracking is a kind of "unconventional" drilling for natural gas. In "conventional" drilling, a well is drilled through layers of impermeable rock into the reservoirs of gas below. In the past 10 years, as relatively accessible deposits of gas have been depleted, the energy industry has turned to gas trapped in small fissures of rock and in clay and sand. The Marcellus Shale, which underlies parts of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, is the largest gas-bearing shale formation in the United States. Hydrofracking, which must be used to access the gas in the Marcellus Shale, is more complex and more dangerous than conventional drilling. The gas is extracted by drilling a well one to two miles down, then the drill is turned to cut horizontal branches for up to a mile through the rock. Water, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals, is injected into the shale under pressure, causing an explosion that fractures the rock to release the gas.

Hydrofracking pollutes land, air and water. Multiple drill pads replace trees and farmland. Methane (the main component of natural gas) is released into the air during drilling and transport. The immediate effect of methane in the air is smog, and beyond the local effect, methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. About half of the millions of gallons of water used to frack the wells remains underground, untreated. Pipes and casings are supposed to contain it, but over time cement shrinks and metal corrodes. The other half of the water is stored in tanks or open pits that are vulnerable to leaks. This water is supposed to be treated, but few facilities are prepared to handle it.

During the day I was able to calmly discuss hydrofracking as one of many energy policy issues. But at night, in my dreams, feelings took over. I tried to deny the import of my dream. I joked about my eco-feminist dream. I was proud that my unconscious mind expressed itself in such enlightened metaphor. But it really wasn't funny. The dream was sending me a message.

Weeks passed, but I couldn't shake the feelings of dread provoked by the dream. Searching for some way to understand my dream I made a foray into Jewish ideas about dreaming. In "The History of Last Night's Dream," I learned from Rodger Kamenetz that the Talmud prescribes a ritual for a person troubled by a bad dream. It is hatavat chalom. The ritual is to share the dream with three friends. After the dreamer describes the dream, the friends say "you have seen a good dream."

On one level, this ritual is about reassuring the dreamer. Don't worry, it says, this nightmare will not come true. But on another level, this ritual hearkens back to a much earlier view of dreams as sources of revelation. Hatavat chalom transforms a private message into a public one. If the dream contains a revelation, a message from God, the community of the dreamer can hear it.

What was the revelation contained in my dream? In my dream I felt the pain of the earth. I also felt the shame of the perpetrator. After all, I use natural gas to cook my food. I use electricity generated by burning natural gas. In the dream I took the perspective of the bystander who felt embarrassed, but also compelled, to speak out. I felt relieved when the people around me joined in to call out the abuser.

By writing this post, I'm sharing my dream with you. You can help me turn it into a good dream by standing up against hydrofracking. Next time someone tells you that natural gas is cleaner than coal, or that we need natural gas to bolster our "energy independence," speak up and tell them that that natural gas is a fossil fuel that causes climate change. Instead of subsidizing hydrofracking, we need to invest in renewable energy. And you can do more than speak up. Stand up and join the movement against hydrofracking.

Earlier this summer the news in Israel was dominated by “The Great Cottage Cheese Uprising,” a consumer boycott of one of the country’s favorite foods. The boycott was prompted by a 75% rise in the price of cottage cheese.

While Israelis were rebelling against the high price of cottage cheese, people in Pennsylvania and New York were waking up to the threat of gas drilling in the Marcellus shale, a geological formation located under much of Pennsylvania and New York.

I know it sounds like a stretch, but cottage cheese and natural gas have something in common. The reason that each product has triggered a revolt is that it is a symbol of a much bigger and more complex problem.

While the price of cottage cheese was rising in Israel, so was the price of other basics. As reported in the Jerusalem Post, the consumer price index has risen by 25% since 2006 while the average salary has risen only 2.6%. Like the United States, Israel has implemented economic policies that have resulted in a shocking increase in the gap between the rich and everyone else. These policies include excessive deregulation and shifting of the tax burden away from direct taxes to indirect taxes that are paid by the poor and middle class. On the surface Israel’s economy is doing very well, but underneath the surface, most Israelis are not doing better and too many are falling behind.

The boycott solved the immediate problem, but not the long term one. Within weeks of the launch of the boycott many Israelis stopped buying cottage cheese. The major suppliers lowered their prices and a Knesset committee was convened to look into the matter. Israelis were not satisfied. Now the cottage cheese boycott is turning into a movement for social justice that continues to bring out thousands of protesters. Maybe the cottage cheese uprising will turn out to be the beginning of a solution to the much bigger problems facing Israel.

What about natural gas? Opposition to drilling for natural gas in Pennsylvania and New York is focused on the dangers of hydrofracking. This is a new method of drilling that employs vast amounts of water, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals to extract gas from shale rock. It poses serious risks to water supplies in local communities and downstream to 15 million people who get their water from the Delaware River. The immediate dangers of hydrofracking are reason enough to oppose drilling in the . But you have to look beneath the surface to understand the bigger problem.

Our energy system is unsustainable. The fossil fuels we are burning, including coal, oil and gas, are heating up the atmosphere. Although natural gas burns more cleanly than coal and oil, it releases greenhouse gases that are causing climate change just like other fossil fuels. The energy industry calls gas “natural” and “clean” to convince us to buy it, but gas is not clean and it is not the solution to our energy problems.

Of course cottage cheese and natural gas are worlds apart in other ways. Cottage cheese is the perfect target for consumer boycott. The decision to buy or not to buy can be made while standing in front of the refrigerator case in the supermarket. If you choose not to buy it there are lots of alternatives. Natural gas is a different story altogether. It is impossible to make an on the spot decision to boycott natural gas. If your utility company produces electricity by burning natural gas you can’t do much about it in the short term.

But in the long term, there is a lot that we can do as a society to change our energy system. Experts say that we waste up to half of the energy we produce. By becoming more efficient we can reduce the amount of energy we need. And we can expand the use of renewable energy, primarily from solar and wind. Every day brings more good news about the feasibility of meeting our needs with clean energy. For example, a new map prepared by City University of New York shows that solar panels on rooftops in New York City could provide almost 50% of the power needed at peak demand times.

All new investment should be targeted to clean energy, not to expanding our use of fossil fuels. Now is the time to make a commitment to the future, before we pollute the land and water in the Marcellus shale. We need to eat, but we don’t need to eat cottage cheese. We need energy, but we don’t have to burn natural gas.

Originally posted on The Jew and the Carrot Blog: http://blogs.forward.com/the-jew-and-the-carrot/141066/#ixzz1VBvl5zzx



Read more of my essay on Parshat Hukkat, published in The Jerusalem Report on July 4, 2011.

My water comes from upstate New York, where gas companies are eager to begin drilling for natural gas to power the energy needs of a growing population. New York City’s watershed lies over the Marcellus Shale, a geological formation that stretches from New York, through Pennsylvania and Ohio, to West Virginia. Until recently, gas companies did not have the technology to extract the gas in the Marcellus shale, because it is trapped in small pockets in layers of rock. But now a new and dangerous process called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking or fracking, has made it possible to release gas. The state is expected to lift its ban on fracking in certain areas of the state, according to The New York Times today.

Why is there so much pressure to drill in the Marcellus Shale? I bake my challah in an electric oven, but natural gas is used to generate that electricity. Demand for natural gas is growing (it already makes up 25% of America’s energy) because it is an alternative to coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, and to imported oil.

Fracking poses risks to land and air, but most of all to water. Each time a well is fracked it takes millions of gallons of water. The water is pumped into the ground under pressure. This fractures the rock to release the gas. About half of the water is recaptured; the other half flows away.

Each stage of this process poses threats to the environment. First, the quantities of water required put stress on local wells and water bodies. It takes 2 million to 9 million gallons to frack one well in the Marcellus Shale, and each well is fracked up to 12 times. Second, the water pumped into the ground is mixed with sand and chemicals. It must be treated before it is released back into the watershed, but there are few treatment facilities. Furthermore most treatment facilities are not designed to remove the contaminants introduced by fracking, some of which are unknown because the gas industry has refused to release full information about what is in fracking waste-water. Finally, water that is not recaptured may pollute the water on the ground and surface.

People near to fracking sites are subject to the most risk. But even though I live farther away, I’m scared, too. I buy the flour for my challah at the farmers market. It comes from Farmer Ground in the Finger Lakes Region. More than 40 farms that supply New York City’s Greenmarkets lie above the Marcellus Shale. I am also concerned about the dozens of Jewish summer camps located in the Catskills and the Poconos. What will happen if their wells are contaminated? In fact, fracking threatens the water of 15 million people along the East Coast because the Marcellus Shale underlies much of the Delaware River watershed, the major source of water for New York City, Philadelphia and New Jersey.

The risk is real, as I learned from watching Gasland, a documentary about fracking that includes scenes of people setting contaminated water on fire. Yet despite the dangers, fracking is barely regulated. In 2005, under pressure from the gas industry, Congress voted to exempt fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Other environmental laws also exclude gas drilling from their regulations.

The Sabbath table on which I place my fresh-baked challah recalls the altar of the ancient temple in Jerusalem. The challah takes the place of the showbread, loaves that were baked by the priests and displayed in the temple. These rituals remind me to appreciate that the meal before me is a gift of God, the earth, and the many people whose work has transformed soil and rain into food. The ritual I find most meaningful is washing my hands as the priests did before they performed a sacrifice. As I raise my hands to recite a blessing I remember that not only the challah, but everything else I will eat and drink, contains water.

To safeguard the water we drink we have to find another source of energy. Drilling has already begun in Pennsylvania and other states. In New York a grassroots movement has resulted in a temporary ban on fracking that has slowed down the gas companies, but this, the groups say, is only a temporary solution. Fossil fuels, including natural gasses, must be replaced by renewable solar and wind energy.

After Shabbat, I’ll be getting back to political organizing to stop fracking, protect our water, and demand clean energy.



Last week I was back in Washington DC as Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders from around the country joined together to call on the US Congress and the Obama Administration to protect human beings and all of God’s Creation from the threat of climate change.  I was one of the organizers of the National Religious Coalition for Creation Care Washington Prayer Breakfast.  We gave Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator the Steward of God’s Creation award.  Jackson's acceptance speech was a stirring call to action.  She said that the vast majority of Americans support action to keep our air, water and land clean.  We must make sure that the price of prosperity is not the life of a child. 

I, and my table full of Jewish environmental leaders, were moved and inspired by the words of the religious leaders who prayed and spoke at the Prayer Breakfast.  Imam Nasim Mahdi, of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, said “We must not despair” or give up our efforts to stop and turn back environmental damage despite how difficult the task may seem.  

Rabbi Fred Dobb, of Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation - a long-time friend and environmental teacher called on us to adopt a new ten commandments of environmental stewardship.  He, like Imam Mahdi, encouraged us not to hold back. He said, “Whether we are clergy or lay people, we must all speak out boldly.  In the Torah, a man runs to Moses to criticize Eldad and Medad for acting as prophets.  But Moses tells them:  Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets!”

Susan Bass, the Earth Day Network’s Senior Vice President, Programs and Operations, said that politicians who vote against legislative to protect the environment are voting “again common sense, God and scientific fact.”

The religious leaders offered Administrator Jackson a blessing, praying for her to have strength and integrity in the face of the difficult political environment she is confronting today.  We could all see how moved she was, and how much she appreciated the spiritual perspective articulated by all of the speakers. 

Following the Prayer Breakfast, the religious leaders, led by Frederick Krueger, Co-chairman of the Coalition, went to Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress to advocate for aggressive action to enable Americans to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Pictured are the Jewish participants: 

Dina Kruger, Kruger Environmental Strategies
Jocelyn Roberts, Etz Hayyim
Fran Teplitz, Green America
Joshua Protas, Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Rabbi Debra Kolodny, Aleph: Alliance for Jewish Renewal
Rabbi Warren Stone, Temple Emanuel, Kensington MD
Rabbi Fred Scherlinder Dobb, Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation, Bethesda, MD, Coalition on the Environment Jewish Life (COEJL), & Greater Washington Interfaith Power and Light
Dr. Mirele B. Goldsmith, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life & Hazon
Vicki Stearn, ThinkOutLoud Media
 
Attended but not pictured:  

Phil Aroneanu, 350.org
Rabbi David Shneyer, Am Kolel of Greater Washington
Joelle Novey, Greater Washington Interfaith Power and Light
Rachel Cohen, Religious Action Center

Today's New York Times includes a column by Joe Nocera extolling the virtues of natural gas and urging Congress to pass the Nat Gas Act - the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act.  As you can see, I take issue with Nocera and Pickens' position, and also with their facts.  We don't need more natural gas. We need more renewable energy.  I wrote this letter to the editor in response to Nocera's misguided enthusiasm and ignorance.

Dear Editor:

Yes, we need to end our dependence on OPEC oil.  But we need to replace that oil with clean, renewable sources of energy.  Boone Pickens has convinced Joe Nocera that only natural gas can save us from the dangers posed by oil because “you can’t use solar or wind to power a vehicle”.  Wrong.  Plug-in electric cars can be powered by any kind of energy. In fact, the New York Times has reported that it is already possible to buy an electric car and charge it up with electricity from solar panels installed on the roof of a suburban home (Off the Well, if only for One Week, May 7, 2010).  The Nat Gas Act championed by Pickens will subsidize natural gas production and infrastructure.  As a taxpayer I support subsidies to move us away from oil, but only if my dollars will be invested in moving us toward renewable energy.



The Poconos and the Catskills, the heartland of Jewish summer camps, are right in the middle of the area where the natural gas rush is underway. There are dozens of Jewish camps in the area, drawing campers from throughout the Northeast and beyond. The Delaware River Basin Commission, which has authority to regulate activities that may affect water quality in the Delaware River, recently held hearings in Honesdale, Pa., about gas drilling. Honesdale is the home of Camp Moshava, Camp Seneca Lake and Camp Towanda. Camp Tel Yehudah is just across the Delaware in Barryville, N.Y.

Jewish summer camps in the region are being approached to lease their land for gas drilling. The deals would likely include payments for signing a lease and a percentage of future royalties if the wells yield gas.

Boards of nonprofit camps and owners of private camps are faced with weighing short-term benefits against long-term risks. Many summer camps have 200 acres of land. In the short term, at $4,000 an acre (the signing fee offered to some landholders in Pennsylvania), a lease could bring in close to a million dollars to fund critical needs such as facility improvements and camp scholarships. But in the long term, the risks are polluted water, land and air.

The gas rush in the Poconos and Catskills is happening now because we have used up our easily accessible fossil fuels, and now we’re turning to deposits that are harder to exploit. One of the biggest deposits of natural gas yet to be tapped is found in a huge area called the Marcellus Shale that includes a large swath of Pennsylvania and western and central New York. Until recently natural gas companies didn’t have the technology to extract this gas because it is embedded in small pockets in layers of rock. But now they do, and the rush is on.

Although natural gas does burn more cleanly than coal and oil, it contributes greenhouse gases to the atmosphere just like other fossil fuels. And getting it out of the ground is dirty and destructive.

To extract the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, drillers have to use a dangerous process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. It involves injecting millions of gallons of water, mixed with toxic chemicals, into the ground and detonating the rock to cause it to shatter. Only about half of the water can be recaptured and potentially treated. The rest flows away to contaminate streams and wells. But that’s not all. Multiple drill pads scar the land, and escaping gas pollutes the air. And scientists have recently identified a further risk that fracking may bring radioactive elements from deep in the earth to the surface.

The gas industry says that fracking is safe, but if that is true, why are the companies that use this technique trying to avoid regulation? In 2005, lobbyists for the natural gas industry persuaded Congress to exempt fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Other key environmental laws also contain exemptions for gas drilling.

Opposition to gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale is growing. New York’s City Council and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have taken stands against allowing fracking in the Marcellus Shale, in order to protect the city’s watershed. Thanks to public pressure, there is currently a de facto moratorium on new drilling in New York State until new environmental reviews are completed, possibly as early as this June.

The values I learned at summer camp have stayed with me. At camp I breathed in the fresh air along with Jewish lessons about personal responsibility, leadership, community and our connection with the land. Today, we have a choice: We can take the money and hope for the best. Or we can turn down the money and do our best to protect the land, water and people from this dangerous form of gas extraction. We have the opportunity to teach our children a lasting lesson about Jewish values. What do we want that lesson to be?

This article appeared in the Jewish Forward on March 18, 2011.



Why bring up these unfortunate women now? Don't we have enough to worry about? Climate legislation has died in the Senate and is unlikely to be revived by the incoming Congress.  And the next round of international climate change negotiations, about to take place in Cancun, seems destined for failure. Why focus on women?  Because this year is the 10th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls for the participation of women in decision-making, the protection of women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence, the prevention of violence against women, and the mainstreaming of gender perspectives in peace operations.  The resolution has inspired many initiatives to protect and empower women around the world.  Now women face new threats as a result of climate change and Resolution 1325 is being revisited. 

The point of Resolution 1325 is that insecurity and emergencies expose women to different dangers than those experienced by men.  This is both because of biology and because of their traditional social status.  And too often, these different dangers are ignored. This should not come as a surprise.  When we look back at the Torah, its stories remind us that we haven't made as much progress as we may think and leaves us with lessons that bear repeating today. As I write this article, Jews around the world are reading the Torah portion of V’yishlach (Genesis 32:4-36:43).  The suffering of women, as women, is a recurring theme in this Torah portion.  As the portion begins Jacob and Esau are to meet again after many years. Expecting a confrontation, Jacob places the most powerless of his family at the front - the maidservants and their children. Next, we read the story of Dina, Jacob's daughter by Leah, who goes out to visit the daughters of the land and is raped. And finally, the Torah portion ends with Rachel's death in childbirth.

The ways in which women are vulnerable, and their human rights are violated, have changed little through the millennia, and climate change will only exacerbate the same old suffering.  As global warming accelerates, much of the impact will be felt through the water cycle.  Erratic rainfall and unpredictable temperatures will threaten women, who produce 45 to 90% of domestically consumed food depending on the region. Men are also farmers, but they may have more capacity to adapt.  Worldwide, women own less than 2% of all property and often have much less access to credit.  Like Jacob's maidservants, women are often still at the mercy of men.  Like Dina, women are at risk when they engage in everyday activities such as collecting water. As climate change affects water resources, women walk longer distances to supply their households. This places them at greater risk of rape, especially in areas of conflict.  The indirect effects of climate change are making childbirth more dangerous than ever, as clean water becomes scarce and infectious diseases spread.

Closer to home, climate change poses unique risks to women even in developed countries with modern infrastructure. In the European heat wave in 2003, 70% of the dead were women. Physiological differences may be one reason that more women than men died, but differential rates of poverty also contribute. Women are more likely to live alone, in poor housing conditions, without air-conditioning. Cities in the Northeast of the United States are predicted to experience increased deaths from heat waves in the coming years.

For me, juxtaposing these troubling issues and statistics with the rape of Dina casts a different light on the connections between women and climate change.  With Dina in mind, I am reminded that climate change is not just a global issue.  It is about communities, families and individual lives, and how new threats complicate old conflicts.  For example, Shechem, son of Hamor, who abuses Dina, is likely using her to gain access to Jacob's wealth. And Jacob's sons, who take revenge on Shechem and his family, have similar objectives, taking their enemies’ possessions, women, and children as spoil. Dina and the women of Shechem’s family, like women in Sudan and Darfur today, pay the price for conflicts over land and water that are likely to worsen as the climate changes.

The Torah does not tell us what became of Dina. In fact, it tells us nothing about Dina's thoughts or feelings. On his deathbed, Jacob blesses his sons, the future tribes of Israel. He never mentions Dina. In recent years feminist interpreters of the Torah have provided Dina with a voice in imaginative retellings of her story.  When the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325, its members made a commitment to work towards a world in which women's voices would always be heard.  Now it is time to make sure that women’s rights are protected and women are empowered to face the threats posed by climate change.

In a searing commentary, Phyllis Chesler, a feminist psychologist, dissects the reactions to the rape of Dina. Her brothers take revenge by killing Shechem and all the men of his community. Their father, Jacob, reprimands them for their overreaction. Yes it is an overreaction, writes Chesler, but we can also learn something from it. The brothers treat the rape as a capital crime and rescue their sister from her tormentor. Their outrage and sense of urgency are unusual and admirable.

There is a lesson here for us. If we don’t act, climate change is going to make all of our problems worse.  Each of us can do something about climate change, whether it is reducing our use of fossil fuels, supporting projects that are helping women develop water resources, or simply educating our friends and neighbors about the realities of climate change.  Somehow, we have failed to realize how urgent the problem is. Maybe now we will think about our mothers, sisters and our daughters and do something about it.

These remarks were prepared for a presentation to the Committee of Religious NGOs at the United Nations on November 17, 2010.  A slightly edited version was published online by The Jewish Week on December 9, 2010.