Book 9 of 2020/Book 1 of 2021 -- Civilization Critical

This book was recommended to me by a congregant about a year ago. Trusting him, I thought I would give it a go. I am glad I did.

Quallman looks at the ways humans have changed how we interact with our world. He also looks at the ways we have changed our relationship with power (referring to energy and fuel more than political/social/economic power). He looks at how the advent of fossil fuels, beginning with coal, has allowed us to change the rhythms and cycles of out relationship with the earth. The image he uses is moving from cycle that are circular and limiting to linear paths where inputs are simply added but not turned back into the system.

Quallman persuasively makes the argument that our current use of resources, our current pouring of waste into the system is a choice that leads to collapse. Mind you it was easy to persuade me of that since I have been leaning in that direction for some time now. The path forward is not going to be in  energy efficiency, or in wind/solar/tidal energy. The path forward is in using less energy and power, in producing less "stuff". Right now anyone paying attention to political and economic policy will know that the assumption is that more growth in the economy is not only desirable but essential. But unending growth is not, in the long term (perhaps getting close to not even in the medium term), realistic. The globe is a closed system, as has been pointed out many times over the years. There are only so many resources, there is only so much space for waste.

Maybe the question is really when we will reach the limits of what the earth can maintain? Or are we already there?

I foresee some very difficult economic discussions in our future. unending growth is not realistic. There is a total lack of balance in our world. ARe we reaching a critical point where the balance will change? Can we find the courage as a culture to plan for and manage the change before massive collapse?

Book 12 of 2018 -- Grounded

Another random find this time.

I started reading this on in the early fall when working on a worship series around environmental stewardship. Then took a break from it for other things and finished it in December.

To be honest it almost felt like the two parts of the book could be separate books in and of themselves, maybe as a two volume set.  There were some linkages between them and Bass does a good job of highlighting those links in the conclusion, but in the end it felt like two books on a similar theme melded into one book.

I really appreciated the beginning discussion of the primary question of "Where Is God?" as it kept popping up in the book.  I do agree with Bass that this is a key question as we move forward.

THe first portion on eco-theological issues is a good book. The second portion which pushes for a look on a social environmental level is also a good book. I just am not sure they work as a single volume.

Book 8 of 2018 --Greening Your Church

In mid summer I went to NAINConnect 2018 in Edmonton. One of the workshops I attended at the event was looking at environmental issues. This was one of the books they had available as possible resources for faith communities to use in such discussions. Knowing that I was going to do a series of sermons in September to mark Creation Time I decided I would get the book.  ANd then I read in late August as part of my preparation for those sermons.

The book comes from a Roman Catholic source, which explains why there is a section in the first chapter about Creation-minded saints. But on the whole it speaks to the broader Christian community. It talks about the theological underpinnings of a Creation Care ministry and also includes some practical steps one can use for such a ministry.

It is a short little volume. It has some good ideas and some good understandings. Of course the real trick is translating the concepts into a sermon... which was a bit of a challenge at times.

Of Energy, and Economics, and Ecology...

Alberta has been, for several decades now, a carbon-based economy. [Actually I would argue that the global economy is pretty much carbon based, but for some of us the base is much more obvious.] The extraction and sale of oil and natural gas has been a major, if not the main, driver of economic activity in the province for my whole lifetime.

Which has meant for some very heady years. There have bee times when money was coming in so quickly governments appeared incapable of managing it well. And then the price of oil would crash and the provincial economy sputtered. Soaring heights to deep crash has been the rule, despite the fact that for the last 30+ years there has been an ongoing discussion about the need to diversify the economy, to get off the oil royalty roller-coaster, to provide a bit more stability to provincial economics and finances. (Though to be honest it always appears to me that the diversification discussion only happens in earnest during the crash when money to support new initiatives is tight and then the price of oil swings back up and people are too busy to do anything but surf the wave.)

And then there is the ecological issue. Carbon-based climate change can be a touchy subject in a carbon-based economy -- especially when said economy is struggling. Anything that seems to place obstacles in the way of such a major piston in the economic engine is portrayed as dangerous, reckless, unfeeling... And yet in a social climate where there is more and ore pressure to address climate change the image of Alberta has not always been positive -- like when the area around the Athabasca Oilsands projects (think Fort McMurray) was compared to Mordor. The more people in Alberta politics and in the oil industry (not all but some) insisted that things had to keep happening "the way they always have" the harder it was for Alberta politicians and business leaders to sell new pipelines to get our key commodity to market (which was self-defeating in the end). Even with ten years of a very oil-friendly Prime Minister in office major pipeline projects were stalled.

18 months ago we had an election. And for the first time in over 40 years elected a new governing party. This happened to be in the midst of one of the biggest slumps in the oilfield in recent decades. The new government has not automatically been doing business as usual (which means they are blamed for the ongoing struggle of the economy although I firmly believe the Alberta economy would be in much the same shape no matter which party was in government, possibly worse if a strongly fiscal party was in power and slashing spending). One of the things they have done was bring in a Carbon Tax (the official term is levy but let us call a spade a spade), which took effect as we took one calendar off the wall and put the new one up for 2017. It is a two step process, this year Carbon emissions are tagged at $20/tonne and effective January 1, 2018 the price will increase to $30/tonne. It is also worth noting that if the province did not do this a carbon price would come into effect next year anyway under the Federal government plan.

The basic premise of carbon pricing is that if we make emitting carbon more expensive then people will emit less. Which is actually very sound in theory (and has been shown to make a difference in British Colombia which has had a carbon price for years and in Newfoundland where they raise the gas tax substantially last year). I am just not sure that we have found the price point which spurs that change. I remember a discussion 10 years ago (or longer) when a group from the congregation watched An Inconvenient Truth followed by some debriefing.  At that time gasoline was climbing above $1/liter, which was seen as a sort of bellwether event. People were commenting on how much more expensive travelling was going to be but when asked if that meant they would travel less the answer was no... The Alberta Carbon Tax/Levy raises the price of gasoline by $0.049/L and diesel by $0.0535/L Will that make people change driving habits in what is, to be honest, a very car-centered culture? Time will well.

As one could have predicted, the new tax/levy is less than popular. (Seriously, when has a new or increased tax been warmly welcomed, even if people agree it is needed?) It does have the potential to raise the cost of living, in a time when large numbers of people are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. But I don't believe it to be the harbinger of doom that the more conservative voices in the province insist it is.

To begin with, low an middle-income Albertans will automatically (assuming they filed their income tax last year) qualify for a rebate that the province estimates will cover the added costs for gasoline and natural gas. True, tying it to income tax returns means that there may be a year lag for some whose income changed drastically over this last year (same thing happened years ago when Alberta has a health care premium and the subsidy was also tied to income tax returns) but at the same time this lag may mean that people will get a payment a year later than when their income falls within the guidelines. And the rebate is just issued, it is not tied to what you actually spend so if you ARE able to cut down on your emissions (and admittedly some/many people will not be able [or will choose not] to do so) you could conceivably make money on the deal. The next step is to provide some money to assist/incentivize folks to install higher efficiency lighting or furnaces and so on to help cut down emissions.

The uncertain part of the cost equation are the indirect costs. The rebate is aimed to cover the direct costs associated with the tax/levy (and some will debate if that does so effectively or if the income cut off is in the right spot). But there will be costs to businesses that will almost inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Calculating those is apparently a real wide field. I have seen numbers that differ by a factor of 3. But in the end I am leaning towards the lower numbers. As one person pointed out is a FB post that was widely shared:
Assume a fully loaded semi uses 1 liter of fuel per kilometer (because this makes the math really easy). That increases the cost to ship that load by $0.0535 per kilometer, or $5.35 per 100 kilometers. Now a fully loaded semi will have cargo worth several thousand dollars. Dividing the extra cost amongst the value of the load means that the per unit cost is pretty darn low.

Then you add in the fact that the  federal government made it clear that the presence of a climate plan in Alberta was a part of what led them to approve two pipeline projects last month and it is really hard to sell the tax/levy as the economy killer some claim it is (want it to be so they can be right?).

But there is a bigger picture question to me.

How do we determine what the "fair/right/proper" price for energy is?

Is it simply the cost of production and distribution (plus a bit of profit)?
OR do you factor in a price for ecological issues? Because there is no sch thing as totally clean energy. In the long run I lean to the latter, though that is a hard thing to calculate. A price on carbon is one way to do that (though there is still the need to figure out a price associated with the changing of a waterway [hydro] or a nuclear plant or the land use of a wind farm or solar array [to be honest a solar array can be piggy backed on many other land uses].

I am not convinced that a price on carbon is the best or only way to address climate change. I am convinced it is a good one. I am not convinced it will do irreparable damage to the economy. I do know that for a variety of reasons (both political and ecological) we can not continue to do things the way we always have (and I am equally convinced that the Official Opposition in this province wants to do exactly that.

So in the end I support the Carbon Tax/Levy. As a start to how we change the world. But there are miles to go before we sleep...

NaBloPoMo -- Victims of our Own Success

Is that a way to describe humanity?

For much of our history as a species we did not have great lives (by modern standards lives were downright substandard).  Mothers were far more likely to die in childbirth.  Children were lucky to live to 5 years old. Subsistence and survival was the name of the game.

But continually we improved.  We got better at food production, and developed technology, and life got better, easier. We developed medical care.  Sure sometimes the development cycle was hit and miss.  Sometimes there were great leaps and sometimes things just didn't change.  But overall we kept getting "better" at controlling and making use of the world around us.

And today? Today much of the global population enjoys a fantastic average life expectancy. WE can make things grow where nature says they shouldn't.  We can drive the cold of winter away and ease the heat of summer (inside at least). We can turn a key and drive across the country. We can manipulate not only the chemistry of our world but the very DNA in our organisms. And it appears to be killing the planet.

Silent Spring. Love Canal. CFCs. Greenhouse Effect. Acid Rain. Chernobyl. Fukushima.  And that is just a partial list...

Maybe our success will be the cause of our demise?

Now let us be honest, the ideal of living so that we don't impact our environment is a myth.  All organisms change their environment.  Sometimes destructively, sometimes symbiotically.  And most don't have the ability to choose or control what that impact will be.

So we need to make a choice.  And more and more I am convinced that there is no sustainable choice that will allow us the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

WE are (justly) proud of the things we have accomplished as a species.  ANd those accomplishments may set the stage for us to be even better.  OR we could become the victims of our own success...leaving a chnged planet behind for what ever species comes next.

NaBloBoMo -- Climate and Politics

Yesterday the Provincial Government announced its plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the past governments in this province have been less than active on this point.  In a world where people have, for years, been calling for reduced TOTAL emissions I have heard more than one Alberta government talk about reducing emissions on a per barrel rate.  Which means that total emissions would in fact RISE due to the ongoing and (at the time) rapid growth in the oil industry.

Yesterday's plan is much more aimed at total emissions.

Among the pillars:

• eliminating coal-fired power generation by 2030.  very ambitious given that a high percentage of power in this province is coal-fired
• replacing 2/3 of that coal-fired generation with renewable sources
• a carbon-tax of $20 per tonne in 2017, rising quickly to $30 per tonne.
• revenue from the carbon tax to be reinvested in anti-pollution measures and to be used to offset the load the carbon tax will place on lower income Albertans

I am still trying to decide the merits of this plan.

Certainly it is better than past "plans".  But there are concerns.

IT is one thing to talk about replacing coal-fired generation.  It is another thing (and often a very expensive thing) to actually do it.  And that may (likely will) lead to higher power costs.

Same with the carbon-tax.  THis plan has it applied to everything--home heating, gasoline/diesel.  Which means it will raise the costs of everything.  NOt just the stuff you buy directly but everything.  Because all those businesses whose costs go up will pass the costs on.

And the reality is that lower income folk not only have less "unassigned" money to spend but they are also more vulnerable to these increases for other reasons.  If you have lower income you can less afford to redo your house to improve the insulation or add solar panels or..... You are more likely to drive an older vehicle. You are less likely to be able to replace your furnace/hot water heater/major appliances with more efficient ones.  And so you pay the cost of using more carbon....

But then again.  I have long believed that if we are honest we have to admit we have not actually been paying the full cost of energy.  Because how do you assign a financial cost to the ecological costs of burning emissions, or of a changed water flow, or of nuclear waste.  There is no such thing as "clean" energy -- just a different form of "dirty".  Maybe a carbon-tax is one way of doing it?

And maybe the best way to encourage people to change is to give them a financial incentive?

There is another piece to this.

One of the handicaps the Alberta oil industry has is that we are landlocked.  Our producers need the goodwill of neighbouring jurisdictions to get their product to market, preferably through pipelines (which are most definitely safer and more efficient than rail or truck).  But because Alberta has a history of preferring economic growth over acting on climate change there is a sense that this gets in the way of that goodwill.  One of the  hopes is that making strong action on the file will not only make a difference in the health of the climate and the health of Albertans but will also help create that goodwill for future discussions on pipeline projects -- because Alberta will still have an economy largely dependent on the oil industry for some time to come, even if this round of diversification talk bears more fruit than ever other round over the last 30+ years.  This is why it was deemed necessary this be announced before the upcoming international climate change summit.

THere have been some of the expected naysayers.  There is a (common) complaint that to make these sorts of changes and announcements when the economy is in decline is "kicking a man when he's down".  On the other hand, experience has shown that there is a distinct lack of drive to do it when things are booming and growth is exploding either.  And again, sometimes we need a driver to push us to change.  Those are more present when times are tougher.

The interesting thing is that the industry appears to be on-side (yes that link IS from an oil company presser, but I can't find a link to the article I read this afternoon).  Not sure what that means....

Urban Sprawl

Central Alberta has some great farmland.  Rich topsoil, a good mix (on average) of heat and moisture.  So why are we living out Joni Mitchell's song Big Yellow Taxi?

In the 15 years since I last lived in St. Albert several whole new subdivisions (with overly large and over priced houses) have sprung up, with more planned.  The city annexed a huge amount of land to the north a few years back -- I often comment on how much stuff is there that was a LONG way out of town before.  Same to the West of town.  Areas where I once rode my bike along gravel roads with fields beside them are now paved roads with developed lots.

Last week when we were down in the Edmonton area this story hit the paper.  12 000 hectares.  Most of which is currently active farmland.  More area where utilities and water lines and sewer (storm and sanitary) pipes will need to be run.  More area of asphalt and buildings and lawns.  On some high quality farmland.

It happens all over.  Grande Prairie has plans to annex land.  Calgary has done it many times.  ANd even without the annexations by cities the counties and municipal districts are rezoning land to residential and industrial.  And often marginal farmland is also marginal for other uses (poor drainage, swampy, rock outcrops etc) so more farmland gets taken away from the plow or the pasture.  Or more bush land is cleared away and the brush burned...

We need to find a better way.  Maybe higher density neighbourhoods are part of the solution?  Maybe redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods?  Possibly, but before that in politically acceptable we have to change some attitudes about how we live and what we "deserve".  Until then we will continue to "pave paradise and put up a..." [parking lot, mall, subdivision, freeway, school, industrial park...]

Waste Reduction Letter to the Editor

So this is National Waste Reduction Week!

Great, but I have to ask if we are doing all we can to promote actual waste reduction. In particular I am wondering about these massive garbage cans we were all issued last year.

We spent over half of August in another community this summer. They also revised their garbage collection this past year. And they did it better. Residents their had a chance to choose how big a garbage can they wanted: the size we have, half that size, and a quarter of the full one. And if you chose a smaller can then you paid less for garbage collection.

And yet here we were all given a garbage can that many people find way bigger than they need. We have four children. In a normal week our can is less than half full. Even if our 1 year old was in disposable diapers instead of cloth we would not come close to filling that massive can. We would jump at the idea to have a smaller can, or to do the other thing I noted done elsewhere (arguably for cost savings as much as waste reduction)--garbage collection every second week.

I applaud this community for moving to curbside recycling. I celebrate that we can put yard waste at the curb for pick up (although it would make more sense to have bins for that instead of all those plastic bags) instead of mixing it in with the garbage. I just wonder if we, as a community, could do more to push waste reduction. Great big garbage cans don't encourage waste reduction, but smaller ones definitely would. Especially if we got to pay less if we produced less waste.

Gord Waldie

Making an Impact

Apparently we like to shape the yards of the places we live.

The first spring and summer I was in my Settlement charge I planted a hedge along the manse sidewalk (which was just getting going nicely by the time we left),  I expanded the vegetable patch from 8x8 to 16x24, and I dug out a bunch of overgrown/rangy/half-dead stuff in the front flowerbeds.  Over the next few years we planted several shrubs and trees (some we bought, some trees one of the trustees brought in from the lake).  We also tried to get the front beds going with perenniels but they never seemed to take hold -- poor soil.  In the time we were there we also had a double pull clothesline put in (60 feet long for a total 120 feet of hanging space, we could hang lots of stuff at once).  The yard was not the same when we left as it was when I arrived.

Fast forward to last year.  When we arrived there were a number of things that we knew needed to be done.  SOme were inside (like replace the crimped water line leading to the dishwasher, install a shower curtain rod, hang a mirror in the bathroom).  SOme were external.  Immediately after we arrived we did some desperately needed fence repairs (the whole fence needs to be redone, a project that will be done in stages starting next spring),  Later in the summer I started turning over sod to make a vegetable garden.  This spring I finished that project and put 10 yards of new dirt in the garden before planting it.  We also added dirt to the side flowerbed.  Then we built our new sidewalk and big front flowerbeds.  This meant getting some shrubs to serve as anchors for those beds and starting to put in perreniels (the front beds will largely be in perreniels), a job that finished for this year last week with some perenniels purchased on sale and some fall bulbs.  Over the summer we have also planted 4 trees.  And we have created a whole bunch of ideas for what else could be done in the yard.

Of course we will never see these efforts come to maturity.  Just like in the manse, we plant things for those who come after to enjoy.  There is a message about faith and life in there I think.

But apparently we like to shape (or re-shape) the yards of the places we live.

An Open LEtter to Town Council

Friends,
Last Friday I was standing in line to replace my SHAW modem. As person after person was told to just go home and toss out their old modem I started to wonder if that was the best solution.

In our increasingly electronic culture there is an increase in the amount of “special waste” that really should be diverted from our landfill. One example is flourescent bulbs, which are already collected by Public Works staff here in town. But there are 2 other categories I wonder about.

The first is alkaline batteries. These often include mercury and other toxic substances and should go into a special waste handling stream. But what do we do with them here? Is there a special place for collection of dead batteries? We have 2 bags of them we have saved up to avoid putting them in the landfill.

The other is e-waste. This is the one I was wondering about last Friday. Computers, monitors, TV's, cellphones etc. – these are a source of heavy metals in our landfills. Many places across the country are setting up e-waste collection sites. And not only in large centers. Last winter I was in a town smaller than this town and shown their e-waste collection site.

What can we do with our batteries and our e-waste? It is inappropriate to simply toss them in the landfill and let their toxins seep into the ground. Is there a plan now for dealing with them? Is there a plan in development? Could we maybe partner with other communities to make dealing with these special wastes more economical? We have a duty to care for the wondrous part of the province in which we live, I just want to help make sure we do the best and most we can.

I just finished this book to day. At 165 pages (plus notes) it is a relatively short read But it is a very worthwhile read for anyone who has doubts about the so-callled economic recovery plans currently being peddled by our governments.

Rubin questions if we can really expect to return to "life as usual" given the state of oil supply and demand. ANd he outlines a very believable picture of why we can't and what that means.

IT is a book with some uncomfortable "truths". But many of us know and understand that the uncomfortable truths are often the most important ones in the end.

Easter Thoughts

We'll never walk on water if we're not prepared to drown,
body and soul need a soaking from time to time.
And we'll never move the gravestones if we're not prepared to die,
and realize there are worlds outside the lines
chorus of of "My Love Colours Outside the Lines" by Gordon Light, 1995

This year I have ended up with a sermon series on resurrection. On Easter Sunday we went with fear. Because after all there is a lot of fear in the Easter stories. And there is a lot of fear in the world. And there is a lot of reason for it. But then again the cure for fear is faith. the cure for the fear of death is to embrace the possibility of resurrection. In the face of all that deals death to our churches, our employers, our security the cure is resurrection.

Last week was woundedness. One of the recurring images in the Easter story is that the Risen Christ bears the wounds of crucifixion. And those of us who follow a resurrection faith bear the wounds and scars of our lives with us. Those wounds can limit and restrain us if we let them. The scars from these wounds can bind. OR the wounds can teach us and give us wisdom. But we have to admit that we bear them. Resurrection is continuous with death and life before death.

And tomorrow is is resurrection and transformation. Another recurring image in the Easter stories is that the Risen Christ is hard to recognize. Obviously resurrection is more than/different from the mere revivification of the crucified body of the man Jesus. There is something transforming about it. And let us all be honest. Most of the time we want revivification or resuscitation. We want the comfortable and the familiar to be brought back.

But as people of Easter faith our hope is in transformation. We don;t hope for the rebirth of what was but of the birth of God's New Thing. We hope for transformation of our churches, our communities, our world. And so we don't push for things to be "like they once were" but for new life to come in totally new and unexpected ways.

Unfortunately that hope is harder. But who promised that following The Way would be the easy path?

Open LEtter to the Prime Minister of Canada

April 22, 2009
Right Honourable Stephen Harper PC MP
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A3

Prime Minister Harper:
As I sit down to write this letter there are three things on my mind. One is the economic struggle in which Canada, and the rest of the world, finds itself these last several months. In fact my area of residence has been experiencing severe economic difficulties for around 18 months now. Another thing on my mind is the season. We are in the season of spring with its promise of new growth and rebirth. Along with this rests in my mind the story that Christians around the world gathered to tell just 10 days ago. The Easter story is one of new life, transformation, and the conquering of death. The third item on my mind is the fact that today is Earth Day, a day when we are challenged to think about the impact we have on the environment around us.

As I combined these three things this morning it occurred to me that they are related. Arguably the economic model under which we have been operating for the last several decades is dead, or at least mortally wounded. We need a resurrection so that we can move ahead. But a resurrection is not found by pumping money into the old model and attempting some sort of economic defibrillation. The resurrection many Canadians celebrate this season is the beginning of something new, of a transformed new life instead of a continuation of the old life.

And so I am writing you to encourage a new perspective on economic stimulus spending. Rather than funding industries and businesses under formulae around jobs created/saved or good return on investment I encourage your government to fund industries and businesses based on their commitment to a new way of living and working. In the context of Earth Day I urge that all governmental grants go to companies pledging to operate under strictly “green” conditions. There are many ways I could see that happening.

It is my belief that the old economic model is deadly to our well-being as people and the existence of the planet. But I believe life is stronger than death. I believe if we are willing to embrace transformation great things can happen. Canada can become a leader in the development of a green economic model. All it takes is the will to make it so.

Thank you for your time.
Peace,

Cc:
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
Hon. John Rafferty, MP Thunder Bay – Rainy River
Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal
Atikokan Progress

Read This Book!

OK, I know that sounds a little pushy. But really, do yourself a favour and read this book!

I just finished it. It is a long (436 pp) read but a fairly easy one. Or maybe a deceptively easy one because while the text is easily accessible it gives you a lot to think about.

THe book sells itself as an antidote to the despair and angst of much climate-change discussion. Not that it belittles the issue. Indeed Turner sees the issue as a matter of survival. But rather than tear his hair and weep he goes out to find the signs of sustainable living that are already out there.

From the product description at Amazon:

With a mix of front-line reporting, analysis and passionate argument, Chris Turner pieces together the glimmers of optimism amid the gloom and the solutions already at work around the world, from Canada’s largest wind farm to Asia’s greenest building and Europe’s most eco-friendly communities. But The Geography of Hope goes far beyond mere technology. Turner seeks out the next generation of political, economic, social and spiritual institutions that could provide the global foundations for a sustainable future–from the green hills of northern Thailand to the parliament houses of Scandinavia, from the villages of southern India, where microcredit finance has remade the social fabric, to America’s most forward-thinking think tanks.

Seriously, I heartily endorse this book. It needs to be read. It's content needs to be embraced. It's hope needs to be transformed into reality.

Random Points of Conference-ness

Some notes and thoughts from last weekend's Conference Annual Meeting:

• One highlight was the theme presentations. The theme speaker was John Ikerd and he was wonderful. He spoke about sustainability and agriculture and ethics and economics. One concept that stood out was that "it makes no economic sense to do anything for others which doesn't benefit us". It is a powerful conscience that can stand up and say "the system is broken".
• Another definite highlight was the celebration of becoming an Affirming Ministry. As part of that celebration we recounted the history of getting to this point in our time. We also took time to lament the church's history of heterosexism/homophobia. Then we had a celebration with rainbow flags and liturgy and made a covenant to be a safe place, an affirming place, a welcoming place. During both the lament and the celebration there were tears in some eyes.
• One of the highlights of conference every year is the music. Music that we don't get to sing in small congregations that are reluctant to try new music, music sung by hundreds of voices at once, music that enlivens the soul and quickens the heart.
• $14.03 per resident member (using 2006 statistics). That is all it takes to fund the Conference Budget. Admittedly a more useful number would be $ per identifiable giver, but still that is remarkably low. Yes that money comes, in the end, from local congregations (through assessments to Presbytery which in turn assesses congregations for the cost of running Presbyteries) and therefore comes out of funds available for local work. But still $14.03 per resident member!
• A constant struggle with these meetings is that there is too much crammed into too short a period. a 13 hour day on Friday and a 9 hour day on Saturday (often with meetings over meal times) coupled with a 2 hour session on Thursday and a 1.5 hour worship on Sunday. Not to mention an 8 hour drive each way... (and children who don't often go to sleep easily in hotel rooms)
• And even with all that time there was not enough time set aside for business -- or too much set aside for other (yes important and meaningful) things so there were 2 proposals that didn't even get looked at before being referred to the Executive
• How many times do we have to hear various ways of saying "we don't do it that way" or fear of change/newness?
• But at least we can laugh at ourselves. OR at least some of us can.
• Oh and I guess I should mention that at the Presbytery meeting on Saturday I was installed as chair of Presbytery for 2008-09

ETA: The "official" summary statement from the meeting is here

Earth Day

I dig your scientific minds but use them with care.

You're breaking down my ozone layer up in the air,

your hyped-up farming's turning southern soil into stone,

and some are eating meat while some don't even get bones.

I told you to be fruitful and you sure multiplied,

but the rich took all the land and never learned to divide, so...

Refrain:
Take, take off your shoes You're standing on Holy Ground.
Take, take off your shoes You're standing on Holy Ground.
The Earth is the Lord's And the fullness thereof
From the waters beneath To the heavens above,
So take, take, take off your shoes
You're standing on my Holy Ground,
You're standing on my Holy Ground.

Last Sunday I started the sermon by reading this song (refrain then all three verses). The chief question of the sermon that followed was "what would it mean to live as if we truly believed we were walking/living on Holy Ground?"

In the past much environmental rhetoric has pushed us to take care of the Earth because it would benefit us (or because failing to do so would hurt us). But I think eco-theology calls us to care for the Earth just to care for the Earth. It isn't ours after all.

The benefit and the challenge of this POV is that it relly pushes us to ask how far we go. IF we are only seeking what will benefit us most/cause least damage to us then we tend to stop when the cost/benfitof change balances out. If we are seeking to do what is best for the whole creation (which is a gift from God) then the cost/benefit analysis changes. True environmental change pushes us to make changes that will hurt. True change pushes us to pay real prices, to rethink our base assumptions about how the world works.

What does it mean to live as if we are on Holy Ground? Because we really are you know, n Holy Ground that is.

A Reminder....

TOday is the day!

TOnight at 8:00 local time around the globe is Earth Hour. The challenge is to turn off all your non-essential lights and appliances (computers and TVs included) from 8-9.

SEe a discussion on the topic here

I trust we can come up with something to do by candlelight...

Lights Out!

Dear Friends and Neighbours;

I write to invite and encourage all of you to join in an exciting initiative happening at the end of this month.

In late February I was at a gathering of churches throughout Northwestern Ontario. At that meeting we heard about an initiative called "Earth Hour". The focus of Earth Hour is for people to turn off all their lights for one hour at 8:00 pm (local time) on Saturday March 29.

Why? What would this solve? Well this is a global movement. Imagine if even half the people of the world turned off their lights for an extra hour. The total energy savings would add up quickly. But it is also a way of making a statement. In order for real change to happen in the world we, the people, must be willing to play a part. By committing to turn lights off for an hour (and remember that the TV is a light source) we say that we are ready to give serious consideration to how we can be part of the eco-solution.

I encourage everyone to take part in Earth Hour this year. This idea began in Sydney Australia last year and has already spread around the globe. Will you help it grow? What are you willing to do to play a part in defeating climate change?

For more information about Earth Hour you can go to http://www.earthhour.org