How can we mitigate global warming?

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, just like catholics aren’t all the same, neither are conservationists (environmentalists, if you prefer). You can hardly deny that there are rather a few ‘watermelon’ eco-activists out there (green on the outside, red on the inside).

Marxist atheists sort of have to be good, since they don’t have the skirt of religion behind which to hide, esp if they want to press their ideological points. So I think that is why many of them are attracted to environmentalism; it makes them look good, like they’re holier than the religious folks.

We had a marxist/atheist colleague 3 decades ago. We used to argue theoretical approaches with him all the time. I’m a multi-dimensional approach scholar, and my husband tends to favor the impact of culture, while Marxists are material/economic determinists. I was actually surprised to run into this colleague some 4 years ago at an environmental criminology section at a conference – and he seemed really into it environmentalism. For one thing marxist environmentalists can blame the capitalists even more That must be very satisfying and justifying for them.

OTOH there are conservative environmentalists. I worked with them quite a bit out in Aurora, which as you probably know is Hastert Republicano territory. They hated Hastert’s lack of environmentalism (restricted to a bit of NIMBYism) and were hoping some other Republican environmentalist would come along to vote for. Also a parish member (his wife and I were in the same St. Anne’s Society section) ran for the IL senate and won. I put him in touch with Lynn Padovan, the environmental lobbyist in Springfield and gave him a copy of NATURAL CAPITALISM by Hawken & Lovins – to which he really warmed, being a businessman. He became a wonderful Catholic, Republican, pro-business, pro-environment senator. ((Environmentalism makes sense both for businessmen and for the oppressed proletariat and for everyone else and the birds and the bees, too ).

BTW, see excerpts from NATURAL CAPITALISM at natcap.org , which is a wonderful source of ideas and inspiration for businesses and our whole economy becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative and getting back on the road to economic prosperity with a much lighter eco-footprint. I esp like their “tunneling through” method.

I also have a film from 3M about their 3P program, Pollution Prevention Pays. When there were some env regs going to kick in in the late 80s, the CEO put it to all the workers from janitors on up to find solutions that wouldn’t cost them an arm & a leg. What happened was they came up with solutions that not only lowered their pollution well below their intended reduction (without lowering their productivity), but have been saving 3M many $millions over the years. The CEO then asked, why weren’t we doing this before, and they told him, “it wasn’t put to us that way.” This type of thing – finding solutions that are better than ever expected and save money – happens all the time, once people start looking.

 

[manualman]

So true. You’ll get a kick out of this one. I did the civil design recently for a major industrial site that was seeking a LEED certification (I’m sure you’re familiar). They got a LEED gold rating (not easy) and abot 6 months later I was called to the site to investigate an overflowing septic system. Turns out the LEED certified plumbing designer had specified a timer based water softener set to recharge once a week. The softener size was required by code calculations based on fixture counts and a recharge cycle required x times the volume in the tank. The recharge spits salty water down the sewer, of course, which ends up in my septic system.

The guy never bothered to consider the implications of his spec. The water softener was using 5 times as much water as the rest of the building combined and was way over the capacity of our system! All it took was to upgrade the controller to a smart meter that tracks actual water use and computes actual zeolite saturation before triggering a recharge. Fixed the whole thing for a couple hundred bucks. This was a LEED certified building (probaby $100,000 spent on getting the necessary credits) and nobody had plucked the low hanging fruit!

 

[lynnvinc]

Well, I have to come clean about my laundry, etc.

I did use an indoor clothes drying rack for a number of years up in IL (where we were on 75% nuke/25% coal electricity) & our clothes dryer was gas,
http://www.supplierlist.com/photo_images/20459/clothes_drying_rack.jpg
but my husband complained of the somewhat moldy smell on the clothes and his terrible sneezing fits and allergies (esp after open-heart surgery), so I stopped the rack and returned to the dryer. Later I came to realize there was a mold problem in our house due to a leak from our shower stall, so that may have been the real issue, also causing the clothes to get a slight moldy smell (which I could never perceive).

However, when we moved to an all-electric home in Texas (where his allergies are much reduced), I continued with the dryer. Meanwhile a blogger gave the advice of shaking out clothes before putting them in the dryer, which would reduce energy use. I had already been doing that, but made sure to do it better — and I bought some four “dryer balls” which help drying time also, and I do hang up a lot of shirts and pants clothes, rather than dry them (or rather than dry them completely).

Now the issue for most people might be the amount of time & effort it takes to put the clothes out on an indoor drying rack or outdoor clothes line. The other thing to consider here is the much reduced folding time (and money savings). Since the clothes/towels/etc already have one fold in them, I would very easily fold them in a snap as I took them off the rack. I think it still takes a bit more net time to put them out on the rack, but one could be saying a rosary or other prayers while doing so. Or watching the news on TV. I.e., multi-tasking.

Now I’m inspired by Luna to dust off my drying rack and start drying just my clothes…even tho now we are on 100% wind-powered electricity from Green Mountain (and because of this, I have been a bit lax about monitoring my electricity use).

 

[kama3]

That’s all fine and cool, but at the macro level we have to wrestle with our old friend, the Jevons Paradox: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]

Jevons warned that fuel efficiency gains tend to increase, rather than reduce, fuel use. This does not imply that increased fuel efficiency is worthless. Increased fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher quality of material life. For example, a more efficient steam engine allowed the cheaper transport of goods and people that contributed to the Industrial Revolution. However, if the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate is correct, increased fuel efficiency will not reduce the rate of depletion of fossil fuels.

The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency, by itself, is unlikely to reduce fuel use, and that sustainable energy policy must rely on other types of government interventions.[12] As the Jevons paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, the imposition of conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not cause a paradoxical increase in fuel use. To ensure that efficiency enhancing technological improvements actually reduce overall fuel use, efficiency gains must be paired with some government intervention that reduces demand (e.g., green taxes, a cap and trade program, or higher fuel taxes).

 

[manualman]

Lynn, next time your washer dies on you, consider a front loader that has a 1,000rpm spin cycle. They centrifugally spin so much of the water out that drying time is greatly reduced and use less than half the water.

They do cost more and tend to tie long sleeve shirts in infuriating knots though!

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, next time your washer dies on you, consider a front loader that has a 1,000rpm spin cycle. They centrifugally spin so much of the water out that drying time is greatly reduced and use less than half the water.

They do cost more and tend to tie long sleeve shirts in infuriating knots though!

They have those types in Europe and India, and they are top loading (but with a horizontal axis). And you’re right; the clothes are practially dry by the time they come out. Also, I remember my mom’s washer – front loading. She had a small laundry room and the dryer was stacked on top of the washer.

 

[lynnvinc]

That’s all fine and cool, but at the macro level we have to wrestle with our old friend, the Jevons Paradox: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Quote:
In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]

Quote:
Jevons warned that fuel efficiency gains tend to increase, rather than reduce, fuel use. This does not imply that increased fuel efficiency is worthless. Increased fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher quality of material life. For example, a more efficient steam engine allowed the cheaper transport of goods and people that contributed to the Industrial Revolution. However, if the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate is correct, increased fuel efficiency will not reduce the rate of depletion of fossil fuels.

Quote:
The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency, by itself, is unlikely to reduce fuel use, and that sustainable energy policy must rely on other types of government interventions.[12] As the Jevons paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, the imposition of conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not cause a paradoxical increase in fuel use. To ensure that efficiency enhancing technological improvements actually reduce overall fuel use, efficiency gains must be paired with some government intervention that reduces demand (e.g., green taxes, a cap and trade program, or higher fuel taxes).

I know you’re right…which is why I’m against Cap&Trade and in favor of Fee&Dividend … which could start out very modestly, then as tech advances and there are more and more savings to be had with efficiency, it could be ratcheted up until it really just makes economic sense to go onto solar or wind energy, or “tunnel thru” as in Natural Capitalism and do without the motor altogether.

Hansen talks about Fee & Dividend (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend ) – put a modest fee on each barrel of oil and ton of coal as it comes out of the ground or into the port, then divy that money up and give 100% of it back to the people, who could then use it to pay their higher energy costs, or become efficient/conservative & go on alt energy and really be on the road to prosperity.

The closest we have to that in Congress right now is the CLEAR Act “Cap and Dividend” at cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm

What do you think about Fee & Dividend, Kama?

 

[ManOnFire]

Add nuclear.

Subtract the entertainment and fashion industries, which aren’t really necessary, and lately, have become trashier than ever. Save some carbon, save a soul at the same time. It’s a win-win that I’m sure many will not tolerate since personal sacrifice is required.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Encourage more people to become monks and nuns. Encourage modesty and temperance in general. Encourage people to follow the evangelical counsels in general.

None of this, by the way, should be taken as my actually believing in global warning. It certainly should not be taken as my believing that draconian policies should be introduced to justify “mitigating global warming.” Environmentalism has become the pawn and tool of the most depraved and tyrannical minds that - even if there was any sort of legitimacy to it - at this point to encourage or even condone it would be to practically support the promotion of evil and godlessness.

 

[kama3]

What do you think about Fee & Dividend, Kama?

It’s certainly a better idea than cap-and-trade.

Though, if I were the king (haha!) I’d simply issue a legal ban on construction of fossil-fueled power plants.

The simpler a law is, the less potential for subversion it generates.

 

[lynnvinc]

Add nuclear.

Many have suggested more nukes, but I would only caution about the terrible abuse at the mining end and how they treat Native Americans and tribals in Niger, etc as “written off people,” worthy of dying so we can blow-dry our hair. Clean up the mess at the mining end, and the disposal end, and ensure more safety in the plants, and it is has some potential to reduce (offset) GHG emissions. But one also has to consider all the GHG emissions involved in the uranium extraction, shipping, plant construction and operation, and disposal, including all the security and expertise and preparation and training, etc. in the nuke endeavor. I don’t know if anyone has done the calculations, but the amount of GHGs offset may not be nearly as much as people imagine.

The same is true for wind power and other alt energy – we have to look at it holistically, cradle to grave (or cradle to cradle…the new industrial design paradigm). I’m on wind power, but there were/are (name removed by moderator)uts and maintainence and land-usage issues. It might pan out better than nuke, also in terms of costs (nuke is highly highly subsidized, also in hidden, not-so-obvious ways, as is coal & oil).

Also nuke energy requires some ready-source energy, like coal-peaking plants, bec they have to run nuke plants at a fairly constant level, so they run them low, then fire up the peaking plants during peak energy use (up in N. IL it was 75% nuke, 25% coal). We had a ComEd guy come to our parish environmental committee in the early 90s. We talked about that, and how maybe they could use pumped storage hydro-electricity ( see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity ) - water pumped up to a higher reservoir during off-peak hours, then released and turned into energy during high-peak demand. I also mentioned electric cars, and the ComEd guy got really excited and said, if a good portion of their customers were charging their cars at night, they could cut their electricity rates by half, by running their nukes at fuller capacity around the clock, and they wouldn’t need much extra peaking energy.

RE WIND: I know that we can’t get 100% of our power from wind, but we could maybe get some 20%, and another 20% or more from various types of solar (which is slowly slowly coming down in price & improving in tech), and some non-food biofuels, a few nukes maybe, and the biggy – REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, become energy/resource efficient/conservative (that alone could feasibly reduce America’s energy demand by 75% or more…see natcap.org ).

 

[lynnvinc]

Encourage more people to become monks and nuns. Encourage modesty and temperance in general. Encourage people to follow the evangelical counsels in general.

That would totally do the trick, and save souls. Just follow all of Church teaching and Gospel ethics, and the saints, and the problem would be solved over-night.

We’d become more like nuns and monks and find joy in God and appreciate God in his beautiful creation (what’s left of it). I’m thinking St. Francis of Assissi, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa, and St. Therese. Even the popes have spoken about the spiritual uplift we can find in God’s creation, which I think might make MTR (mountaintop removal) wrong just for that reason alone, not to mention the local pollution and harm, then the harm from the coal burning (local pollution, acid rain, AGW) and sludge disposal (risking coal ash spills) – causing human health harms and death. Just so we can blow dry our hair.

Now that we have so many alternative to coal burning (and energy/resource efficiency/conservation options), we really need to end coal (as Kama suggested)…at the very least we need to end the heavy subsidies and tax-breaks to the coal industry. I don’t really like paying on April 15th for others to pollute and kill people.

 

[lynnvinc]

Anyone heard of BIO-CHAR?

I heard about it & got excited some years back – it not only draws down CO2, but can sequester it in ways that make agri lands much more productive. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too. Then a friend at BoiFuelWatch.org cautioned me that it hadn’t been studied enough and there were issues ( see biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf ). One issue was the transport of the charcoal and release of black soot into the atmosphere (which we really don’t want).

Neverthess, I’m thinking if it is done well, maybe not large scale, it could be a part of a solution.

Here’s how it works: bio-matter (such as waste) is burned under very low oxygen conditions, known as pyrolysis. That basically keeps most of the carbon in the matter making a very carbon-rich charcoal. The process can also generate energy to make electricity, etc. And the end product, the charcoal, can be plowed and mixed into the soil, greatly improving crop productivity (it’s not a fertilizer, but a soil amendment).

Apparently the ancients in Amazonia produced such soil, known as terra preta, with their charcoal stored there for 1000s of years. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

Now I was thinking this could be done with portable pyrolysis units down along the Rio Grande River. There is an invasive species there, carizzo cane, which also serves as a cover for undocumented peoples and drug smugglers. Homeland security was going to spray herbicide all over the valley to get rid of it – putting untold numbers of people at health risk. Luckily there were protests and that project was halted. But why not turn the cane into bio-char, which could be used by valley farmers as a soil amendment, and the energy to help power various nearby facilities, etc. Maybe it would have to be wetted down and covered during short distant transport…

Another idea. Plants, trees and shrubs grow so fast here they have a yard waste collection about once a month year around. They take all that to some central place and make mulch out of it. Well, they could make biochar out of it at not very much extra cost…

 

[Nate13]

My question would be how do you mitigate killing people who can’t afford to pay the higher electricity costs that come with switching to renewable energy at this point?

 

[lynnvinc]

My question would be how do you mitigate killing people who can’t afford to pay the higher electricity costs that come with switching to renewable energy at this point?

My understanding is that wind energy is now competitive with fossil fuel energy and solar is inching downward toward competitive pricing. One needs to understand that oil and coal are heavily subsidized and receive huge tax-breaks (nuke even more), so it isn’t a level playing field right now; once it is, then alt energy will look very attractive, not only cheaper, but in terms of doing less “externalities” harms, lowering health costs for all, etc.

I understand there is some law or proposal in Calif (not sure if it passed) to put solar panels on people’s homes, then from the savings on their electric bills each month, take a portion to pay off the panels. It’s a win-win-big-win situation. The people have lower energy bills without upfront money, the gov gets paid back, and health problems & costs associated with polluting energy are lowered.

That’s sort of what we did on a small scale for our water conservation campaign in an IL city (note water takes energy to pump and heat it…so it was also an energy conservation campaign). We got some seed money grant, with which we bought at near wholesale cost lowflow showerheads with off-on switches, water-saving garden hose nozzle, sink aerators, and some other things, plus we printed out a water-saving brochure and created kits with this. These were handed out via the water department, and we asked for a $10 donation (to cover the cost and purchase more supplies for more kits). When we approached the water dept about it, the head of it was extremely glad someone finally took interest in the issue. He told us the city wells had lowered 800 feet in the 100 years they had been in service, and it was getting to be a crisis situation. We also thought of having a contest for the brownest lawn at the end of summer (grass is a drought-resistent plant and nearly always comes back with fall rains–tho I had to do some reseeding in a few patches after one exceptionally hot & dry summer), but we had to move to another state for a job.

I know that showhead really works. I did a bucket-stopwatch test, and found it saved half the water without feeling any different. I had bought mine (same model) many years before in 1990, and I figure we’ve saved over $2000 since on water and energy bills. Not bad for a $6 investment.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Encourage more people to become monks and nuns. Encourage modesty and temperance in general. Encourage people to follow the evangelical counsels in general.

None of this, by the way, should be taken as my actually believing in global warning. It certainly should not be taken as my believing that draconian policies should be introduced to justify “mitigating global warming.” Environmentalism has become the pawn and tool of the most depraved and tyrannical minds that - even if there was any sort of legitimacy to it - at this point to encourage or even condone it would be to practically support the promotion of evil and godlessness.

This. Clean up our culture and the rest will take care of itself. Install virtue into the minds of people, young and old, and both the economy and the environment will be in much better shape. Cleaning up our culture consists of removing the neo-pagan environmentalist mindset as well, which I’m unpleasantly surprised to see is more widespread than I thought.

 

[Nate13]

My understanding is that wind energy is now competitive with fossil fuel energy and solar is inching downward toward competitive pricing. One needs to understand that oil and coal are heavily subsidized and receive huge tax-breaks (nuke even more), so it isn’t a level playing field right now; once it is, then alt energy will look very attractive, not only cheaper, but in terms of doing less “externalities” harms, lowering health costs for all, etc.

A family member of mine works for an energy company and buys and sells electricity on a daily basis. Coal is by far the cheapest, followed by natural gas, nuclear, wind and then solar. All of these are given tax breaks to some extent, and I really have seen no proof that there is that much difference in how much a tax break each is given. Do you have some proof that shows the difference in how much each of these are taxed or are your just repeating hearsay?

People today are spending on average $300 more a year on electricity than they were 5 years ago and that is only after the slight changes Obama has made. Demand during that same time has only gone up by 0.5%.

I looked it up. instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/08/03/eia-releases-new-subsidy-report-subsidies-for-renewables-increase-186-percent/

Renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion. Renewables saw by far the largest jump in federal benefits. Of the $14.7 billion in fiscal year 2010, $6.2 billion (65 percent of the increase) was related to the Obama administration’s economic stimulus law.

-Wind led the various renewables with a more than 10-fold increase in subsidy from $476 million to $4,986 million.

-Solar subsidies increased by more than a factor of 6 from $179 million to $1,134 million and led the electricity sector subsidies on a unit of production basis.

-Subsidies for biofuels increased by 66 percent, from $4 billion to $6.6 billion.

-Conservation and end-use subsidies more than tripled from $4 billion to $14.8 billion. Conservation subsidies increased from $369 million to $6,597 million, a factor of almost 18. End-use subsidies increased from $3,618 million to $8,241 million, more than a doubling.

In contrast,

-Federal subsidies for coal increased 44 percent from $943 million to $1,358 million.
-Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas increased 40 percent from $2,010 million to $2,820 million.
-Federal subsidies for nuclear energy increased 46 percent from $1,714 million to $2,499 million.

In summary:
Wind subsidies = 5 billion
Solar = 1.1 billion
Biofuels = 6.6 billion

Coal = 1.3 billion
Oil/natural gas = 2.8 billion
nuclear energy = 1.7 billion

The Federal Subsidies per unit of production chart is an interesting one to take a look at as well.

 

[lynnvinc]

A family member of mine works for an energy company and buys and sells electricity on a daily basis. Coal is by far the cheapest, followed by natural gas, nuclear, wind and then solar. All of these are given tax breaks to some extent, and I really have seen no proof that there is that much difference in how much a tax break each is given. Do you have some proof that shows the difference in how much each of these are taxed or are your just repeating hearsay?

RE subsidies, I inquired and heard it from my Republican (anti-environmentalist) congressman’s aide…so I sort of believe it. And then Obama made a speech today re oil subsidies.

I personally don’t keep exact tabs, bec human life is more dear than a few dollars here or there. What concerns me is the tremendous harm done by fossil fuels (these are externalities, not factored into the costs). Not just from AGW, but the total harms, from mining, mountaintop removal, burning (local, regional, global pollution), coal ash & oil spills, etc. Asthma, emphysema, miscarriages, etc. And I don’t like paying on April 15th for others to pollute and harm. So it’s more like a priciple than costs for me.

In other words, I’d be willing to pay more for wind power – and we did for a number of years by some $5 a month, before it became cheaper by about $3 a month some 5 years ago than fossil-fuel electricity (perhaps due to increased subsidies to wind?).

We give money to various charities, why not pay a little extra to reduce our harms as a form of charity?

 

[lynnvinc]

Cleaning up our culture consists of removing the neo-pagan environmentalist mindset as well, which I’m unpleasantly surprised to see is more widespread than I thought.

I’m thinking if the Catholics and other mainstream religions can show they are really interested in reducing their environmental harm to people and God’s creation, more people would be drawn to our religions (or stop leaving them), rather than seeking neo-pagan thinking or religions.

Now I have to admit I was at one time very hard on the neo-pagans. In the 1980s I had a student who – after I had given my anthro lecture on witchcraft – said with a hurrumph, “I’m a witch and I resent the way you’re talking about us.”

I thought, Wha-??? Witches?? Hadn’t they all been burned at the stake centuries ago?? And don’t put a hex on me

Then in the 90s when an interfaith group (mainly Presbyterians and a couple of Catholics, and one Jain) sprung up – the IL Committee on Climate Change – and we were discussing outreach to other religions, I said, all religions are fine with me, except the neopagans; they’re mean. They thought it wasn’t right to exclude any religion, so decided not to exclude neopagans, tho as it turned out no neopagans ever joined. At any rate none of the neopagans I’ve ever known (like maybe 4, plus one pagan) didn’t seem much into environmentalism, certainly not more than I am.

Just last week I was giving a similar anthro lecture about witchcraft, explaining how such beliefs in some societies without much formal social control (bands and tribes) serve as informal social control (no one wants to be labeled the witch and be excommunicated or killed if someone’s baby dies or a crop fails, so people strive to act good, positive, and bury the hatchet, etc).

I also mentioned how neopaganism and brujaria & Curanderismo (Spanish for witchcraft & shamanism) had been on the increase in our own society, and figured it might be due to lack of social control or ability of society to solve pressing problems. One student suggested maybe it was because the Christian Right was so mean that it turn people off of Christianity, pushing them into neopaganism.

At any rate, I think it would be wise to avoid both the “pushes” on people in our faith community toward seeking some other faiths, and work on increasing the “pulls” toward us.

Jesus and his methods are a great pull; they just need to be put into practice more.

BTW, I still think my theory may have some merit – that society’s (and its social institutions, incl gov, biz, family, church) lack of even addressing, much less working to solve such serious problems of AGW & other enviro harms, might be a factor in pushing people to grasp at things like neopagan beliefs. They are looking for something that might work. We need to make Catholicism work (or work better).

At the very least, if a lot of mainstream Christians embrace environmentalism in truly Christian ways (instead of standing on the sides pointing out all the flaws of environmentists they encounter), at least that will reduce the proportion of neopagan environmentalists.

 

[lynnvinc]

…if a lot of mainstream Christians embrace environmentalism in truly Christian ways…

There is a lot in Catholicism that coordinates very well with environmentalism. I know people often point to St. Francis of Assisi, but I find a lot of inspiration not in the “nature-loving” saints, but the the “worldly detachment” saints, like St. John of the Cross. What we need is less love of the world (and gobbling greed), and more detachment – not only from material things, but also pride/honor, and spiritual consolations, from all that is “not-God.” That is the only true path to union with God and true joy and freedom, according to St. John of the Cross, and I think a good path to reducing environmental harm.

From the Ascent of Mt. Carmel:

To reach satisfaction in all
desire its possession in nothing.
To come to possession in all
desire the possession of nothing.
To arrive at being all
desire to be nothing.
…
When you turn toward something
you cease to cast yourself upon the all.
For to go from all to the all
you must deny yourself of all in all.
And when you come to the possession of the all
you must possess it without wanting anything.
Because if you desire to have something in all
your treasure in God is not purely your all.​

Psalm 24

The Lord’s is the earth and its fullness,
the world and all its peoples.
It is he who set it on the seas;
on the waters he made it firm.

Who shall climb the mountain of the Lord?
Who shall stand in his holy place?
Those with clean hands and pure heart,
who desire not worthless things…

I came up with this, based on St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood (forgive me if I’ve already posted this):

THE LITTLE WAY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALING

We are faced with enormous environmental problems that kill people, and destroy property and wildlife. Everyone needs to help solve these.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus teaches us the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. She felt she could not perform the big mortifications of the saints. We also feel we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences.

St. Therese, though, was determined to become a saint. She read, “Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” Following this, St. Therese in childlike simplicity offered God all of her small deeds of ordinary life, and placed all her trust in God to help her scale the cliffs of perfection and avoid temptations. This is the Little Way. “Not everyone can fast, or wear hair shirts, or spend hours in prayer,” she used to say, “but everyone can love!” One thing alone is needful: all must be done for love of God.

What is needed to solve the big environmental problems is a life of many small deeds done out of love for God. We need to offer many small prayers to help us understand the problems and find solutions, and then more prayers to carry out our actions in daily life.

We need faith that our small deeds will, with God’s grace, amount to more than a meaningless drop in the bucket, letting Jesus multiply our fish & loaves; Mother Teresa said our love makes our small deeds infinite. We need hope that we will one day be rejoicing with God in heaven, so we need not be too concerned with worldly riches, comforts, and status. We need the charity of joyfully sharing God’s bounty and beauty with others around the world and in the future by helping to save the Earth.