Tag: climate change

Categories
Opinions

Stockholm Syndrome in Sharm El-Sheik: Searching for Hope at a UN Climate Conference

By Issac Mann

Everyone in the conference center at COP27 (the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference) was looking for something. Some were looking for new partners or to expand their networks, while others were looking for investment opportunities or policy commitments. But I was looking for something less concrete: hope. 

My search was shared by many in my group as well. I traveled to Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, with the Christian Climate Observers Program (CCOP), a non-denominational group committed to teaching Christians to be better climate advocates. This organization brought together Christians of all ages from around the world, and many of the young people in the group shared a common struggle with climate anxiety. It was the fear of what the future would hold if no action was taken against climate change that motivated us, myself included, to come to this conference. For others in the group, anxiety had already passed into grief. Family members lost to flooding, communities lost to wildfire, or livelihoods lost to financial burden were the driving factors behind their activism. We sought hope of some kind, proof that God was working in the midst of the chaos around us. And so, our anxious and mourning souls went into the massive conference center, longing for a reason to hold onto hope. 

My first activity at COP27 was to listen to the opening speeches. I sat giddy with excitement in a large overflow room filled with others not granted in-person access to the main event. We watched on big screens as prominent world leaders gave their opening remarks. Given the overwhelming scope of climate change, I had gone into the conference expecting to find hope in these largest and most powerful bodies, so I listened intently to what they had to say. If the world’s governments couldn’t solve climate change, who could? I thought. But as I listened, my excitement and hope plummeted. I realized that I had developed a strange sort of climate Stockholm Syndrome. 

Stockholm Syndrome is a condition that some people fall into during hostage scenarios. In a distorted understanding of their situation, the captives start to develop a bond and sympathize with their captors. And I had fallen into this state of mind. The climate is being held captive by private economic interests and political systems that value profit and growth more than the well-being of those held dear by God. And yet, I had placed my hope in these very systems. I thought they were well-intentioned, that if we had the right people in power, saying the right things, meaningful change would come. It was with this twisted hope that I sat in that room. 

As world leader after world leader rambled on about “unity,” “urgency,” and “taking action,” I became increasingly disillusioned. My skewed view of where hope would be found was made obvious to me as I realized I was being told how important reducing carbon emissions was by oil barons. I was listening to military dictators tell me how much they cared about justice. Even those from my own country, the United States, bragged about our new partnerships with billionaires and private corporations (the leading contributors to carbon emissions) to fund new environmental programs. It was these systems and leaders that I was sympathetic to, that I looked to for salvation, and yet they were the very ones holding our planet and future for ransom. 

I spent those first few days discouraged. I realized my hope had been misplaced and tried to dismantle my climate Stockholm Syndrome, but I didn’t know where else to turn for hope. I asked myself again, ‘If the world’s governments couldn’t solve climate change, who could?’

I did eventually find hope at COP27, just not where I had thought I would. In hindsight, I should have expected it. Our hope is in God, that much should be obvious to Christians, but where God would be found was what I needed to answer. God has never been revealed in the most powerful among us, in the wealthiest or most privileged. God did not appear to Elijah in 1 Kings 19 in the strong wind, or the fiery earthquake, but rather in the gentle whisper. God did not come to Earth in the form of a Caesar or military leader, but rather as a carpenter from Nazareth. So, I should’ve expected that God would not be revealed to me in Egyptian President Sisi, or in Joe Biden. 

Every morning, my CCOP group started the day with breakfast and a devotional. Together, we would rejoice the successes and commiserate the frustrations of the previous day. At every panel discussion or lecture I attended, I sat shoulder to shoulder with others who cared for the right reasons, who cared enough to travel to the middle of the Egyptian desert, who cared enough to listen and learn in any way possible. Conversations were had, connections were made, and I realized that I was surrounded by thousands of regular people who cared deeply about the protection of our planet and its inhabitants. It was in these people that I found God, that I found the hope I was looking for.

It’s clear that we need to overcome our reliance and trust in those systems that are holding our planet and future hostage. To make it through the changing of our climate, we need serious systemic change. But what COP27 taught me is that this change will never come from the top down.  Our hope will not be found in the economic powers and world leaders that preside. Our hope is where God is, with the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the mourning, the anxious, the masses who are calling out for a more just world. We are each other’s hope, and only together will we be able to accomplish the change we need. ★

Categories
Campus News

EcoReps Hosts Climate and Politics Debate

Professor Ron Oakerson moderated the Environment and Politics Debate that took place in Schaller Hall last Thursday.  Sponsored by the Eco Reps Club, the purpose of this debate was to discuss issues concerning climate change, fracking, and pipelines.  Sarah Duttweiler ’17, Claire Brower ’18, and Bekah Potts ’17, represented the progressive view, while Alex Conklin ’17 and Jonathan Libby ’20 represented the conservatives.

Before launching into the debate, Oakerson asked each side for their opening comments.  The progressive team argued climate change is a prevalent issue today.  It “affects the most vulnerable people on our planet,” argued Potts.  They advocated policy changes and hoped to inspire a personal approach to climate change.  Libby, from the conservative team,  emphasized that  “everything scarce; everything has a limit.”  The purpose of their argument was to challenge the notion that policy changes are a serious issue.

Oakerson’s first asked “What policy changes should our political leaders make concerning climate trade?” The conservatives argued policy changes are unnecessary, as long as people are doing their part.  In response, the progressives brought to light the fact that, while major companies have acknowledged the problem, particularly with carbons, most consumers prioritize convenience.

The follow-up question asked for thoughts concerning the carbon tax, and if it is “politically feasible.” Libby stressed a carbon tax would have to be government funded, and stated, “We are still paying for it, in some way or another, as a whole, toward the increased payment laws being made toward any carbon based product, as long as consumers are okay with paying for that.  A carbon tax would raise prices on almost everything we buy.”  The progressives agreed a carbon tax is “probably not” feasible.

The second topic, hydro-fracking,provoked increased disagreement between the opposing sides.  The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research define hydraulic fracturing as “A technique in which large amounts of water, combined with smaller amounts of chemicals and sand, are pumped under high pressure into a drilled gas well.”  The conservative panel cited many instances in which hydro-fracking is detrimental to the environment.  Duttweiler said it “releases more methane into the air, which is a leader of greenhouse gasses.”  Additionally, hydro-fracking pollutes drinking water because it leaks into wells, and “creates earthquakes,” because, as Brower added, “the ground is a lot more unstable.”  The conservatives even cited a fact which stated  hydro-fracking causes a 600% earthquake increase, but that the effects are “not bad.”  Both sides agreed that pipelines, while they are “iffy” and prone to leakage, are the “safest way to transport oil.”  

Attendee  Vivian Chappell’18, who identifies herself as “progressive, without reservations” did not have her expectations met on Thursday’s debate. She said, “My impression of the debate was that both sides could have more thoroughly researched, understood, and cared about the arguments and the positions they were defending. I was overall rather disappointed by the lack of quality and concern displayed by the participants.”  She found that neither side’s argument was particularly successfully because “both sides represented pros and cons that were rather confusing and left one misunderstanding which position was being supported by whom.”  Chappell said she would have also liked to have seen more issues addressed, such as “urban sprawl, genetic engineering, water pollution and public health.”

However, others attendees thought the debate to be a general success.  Progressive student, Laura Black ‘15 said,“Both sides were great, but it seemed like the ‘conservatives’ were either more researched or more confident.”  Bonnie Huegel ’19, who “leans more progressive,” agreed.“The progressive side did argue more clearly, while the conservative panel seemed more well-researched; but I would not say that either was much more or less successful than the other,” she said.  Hegel applauded the Eco Reps club for hosting the event and hopes for more similar events in the future.  “Caring for the environment is an important and very relevant issue in contemporary politics,” said Hegel. “ I feel like it can’t be emphasized enough.”

Categories
Opinions

Why I Pray Daily About a Pipeline

I have a friend named Art Tanderup.  Talkative and friendly with the kind of laugh that exemplifies a down-home joie de vivre, Art is a normal Nebraska farmer.  I met Art last April in Washington DC where we both arrived to protest the Keystone XL pipeline.  I came as part of a Facebook prayer band called #PrayNoKXL.  Art came because the pipeline route literally runs through his backyard.

brain.webbI met another friend in DC named Greg Greycloud.  Greg lives in South Dakota and is a member of the Lakota Sioux Nation.  Intelligent and witty with a kind and compassionate heart, Greg leads a ministry encouraging Lakota men to embrace their roles as responsible husbands, fathers, and leaders.  Greg came to DC because the pipeline route illegally crosses land that belongs by treaty to his people.

What the three of us share in common is a deep conviction that the Keystone XL pipeline is a morally and ethically wrong decision.  Here’s why:

The Tar Sands. The purpose of the Keystone pipeline is to transport bitumen (a thick sludge-like mixture of sand, oil, clay, and chemicals) from Alberta to the Gulf Coast for refining and export.  The highly intensive process of extracting bitumen turns once lush boreal forests into alien landscapes largely devoid of life with chemical laden tailing ponds so large they can be seen from space.  This devastation is not only destroying an entire ecosystem, but has also resulted in significant health impacts to Native communities living downstream.

AnthonyBurdo_BrianWebbThe Ogallala Aquifer.  The Keystone pipeline runs directly over the Ogallala Aquifer—at 174,000 square miles, North America’s largest.  In many places the aquifer sits just a few meters below the surface of the ground.  In spite of all the modern safeguards pipelines do leak.  Just last week a pipeline in Montana spilled 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River.  A leak in an Arkansas suburb spilled five times that amount in 2013, and in 2010 more than 1 million gallons of bitumen spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.  The Kalamazoo leak was so devastating that 5 years and $700 million later it still hasn’t been completely cleaned up.  What happens when the primary water source for our nation’s breadbasket Great Plains states becomes polluted?

Native Treaties.  Despite their protests, the pipeline route in South Dakota crosses over land legally granted to the Rosebud Sioux Nation by United States treaty.  Sioux President, Cyril Scott went so far as to call Keystone “an act of war against our people.”  With our country’s shameful treatment of Native Americans going back hundreds of years, shouldn’t it be time to stop breaking our treaties and start showing respect and honor to those whose land we have already taken away?

Eminent Domain.  TransCanada, the foreign private corporation who owns the pipeline, is now using eminent domain to take away the land of ordinary Americans who don’t want the pipeline to run across their property.  Shouldn’t private property rights be a concern of all Americans, and particularly for ideological conservatives?  Shouldn’t my friend Art have the right to refuse 900,000 barrels a day of toxic bitumen running across his farm (his livelihood)?

Climate Change.  Because of the highly energy intensive processes associated with their extraction, transportation, and refining, the tar sands have a much larger impact on the global climate system than does conventional oil.  While oil continues to form an important part of our economy, it’s time to modernize our infrastructure by forgoing antiquated fossil energy and focusing on clean energy sources, such as wind and solar, that will always create domestic jobs, that are endlessly renewable, and that don’t harm God’s creation or his people.

Proponents of the pipeline spout all kinds of claims about jobs, but the reality is that it will only create 35 permanent jobs.  35 jobs in exchange for more broken Indian treaties, unethically enforced eminent domain, pipeline spills of toxic tar sludge, possible contamination of our country’s largest aquifer, environmental destruction, and a bleaker outlook for the global climate system.  Keystone is not a political issue.  It’s a common sense one.