St. John's Episcopal Church

Like many others around the country, I spent yesterday and today watching coverage of Hurricane Ike.  The gigantic storm, as large as Texas itself, came ashore at Galveston Island, flooded Galveston and areas to the east, made a mess of downtown Houston, and now is working its way north.

Galvaston itself is home to more than 57,000 souls.  Reports indicate that most residents evacuated, yet some stayed behind — this in spite of warnings from the National Hurricane Center that people in 1- and 2-story structures near the shore faced “certain death.”  As you may know, seven thousand Galveston residents died in the legendary 1900 hurricane.  That storm still ranks as the nation’s most deadly.  So why would some people refuse to head for higher ground?  The answer is: denial!  There is something in the human heart that just naturally responds to serious situations by denying the obvious.  We say, “No, it couldn’t be.”  So predictable is the denial reaction that it is a recognized symptom of heart attack.  

A similar denial reaction has characterized America’s response to our use of oil and its impact on the environment.  Rachel Carlson started the environmental discussion in 1962 with her book Silent Spring.  The impact of hydrocarbon fuels (oil and coal) on the environment has been under discussion since the mid-1970s.  Our dependence on imported oil has been squarely on the table since the oil crises of 1973 and 1979.  Since the 1970s virtually everyone has recognized the need for a coherent energy policy.  But 40 years later, all we have from our political leaders is talk, not action. 

Our denial now appears to be breaking up.  $4 gasoline has gotten everyone’s attention.  Energy in general, and imported oil in particular, has become a major issue in this political season.  However, brave words notwithstanding, I see little evidence that a new President and a new Congress, left to their own devices, will be able to get past the political gridlock — an especially nasty form of denial — that has prevented progress on energy and other important issues.  T. Boone Pickens and his wind/solar/natural gas plan show promise of forcing our political leaders to do what they have so long resisted, that is, get serious about energy.

Here is where the Church comes in.  The Church has a unique vocation: speaking truth to power.  That phrase comes from the Quaker community, which has been doing this for generations about the problem of war and peace.  In the context of energy, speaking truth to power means insisting that our representatives in Washington cease wallowing in denial and begin making the hard decisions and intelligent compromises this complicated problem requires.  Our economic health and national security depend on it.  

Clearly, individual members of St. John’s or any other congregation will disagree about what to do with the energy problem.  That’s both expected and healthy.  But disagreement is not an excuse to do nothing.  The soaring cost of fuel has driven up prices throughout the economy — especially transportation and food — and this bears most heavily on the poor.  If Christians have a special responsibility for “the least of these, my brothers and sisters,” then helping force action on energy makes very good sense.  Thus, precisely because we do disagree, we are challenged to lead the way in finding common ground so that, when we speak truth to power, we speak out of our authentic diversity.

There is also a leadership issue here.  It seems to me that a congregation needs to be a leading force in its community.  Too often this leadership role falls to the pastor or a few talented lay members who are deemed “qualified” by virtue of their position or gifts.  I disagree.  A congregation itself ought to stand for something, and make its position clear in the community.  Sorting out the energy problem is a good thing for a congregation to stand for!  Clearly, a congregation should not take an explicitly partisan role.  To do so risks its tax exempt status under the IRS Code.  But a role that is non-partisan and focused on actions that both political parties can reasonably support is legal and appropriate.  Again, the PickensPlan commends itself as such a non-partisan option which holds promise of moving the nation in a positive direction.

– Fr. John Laycock +

For additional information on the PickensPlan, see:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700258134,00.html

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/09/ap5404438.html

Does T. Boone Pickens’ proposal — build wind and solar farms to generate electricity, and divert natural gas to transportation — have a prayer of becoming reality?  While private investment will do much of the heavy lifting, Pickens says Washington must provide “transmission corridors” (i.e., improve the electrical grid) and extend investment tax credits to encourage private investment.  That means breaking the gridlock in the nation’s capital.

Why this gridlock?  Scott McClellan, President Bush’s former press secretary, offers one explanation in his recent book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception (Public Affairs, New York: 2008).  McClellan offers a harsh analysis of the President’s leadership.  Offended, prominent former colleagues say McClellan has been seduced by liberal publishers, and even suggest that he has suffered a mental breakdown.  Read the book and draw your own conclusion.

A key element of McClellan’s argument is the permanent campaign, “a shorthand term for the way political leaders today work 365 days a year, year in and year out, to shape and manipulate sources of public approval as the primary means for governing” (p. 62).  He borrows this concept from The Permanent Campaign, published in 2000 by two think-tank scholars, Norman J. Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Thomas E. Mann of the liberal Brookings Institution.  The permanent campaign “elcuidates one of the core phenomena of today’s Washington.” McClellan says (p. 62).

American politicians have always governed with an eye to the next election.  After all, as I was told in my college political science classes, the first responsibility of an elected official is to get reelected!  However, McClellan argues that since the Nixon Administration, the attitudes and techniques of the modern political campaign have increasingly intruded upon, and largely displaced, the task of governing.  Republicans and Democrats alike have contributed to this new way of doing business.  Regardless of who controls the White House or Congress, the question now is not “What’s best for the country?” but “What’s best for our party and candidates?”  

Moreover, McClellan contends that the media has colluded in the permanent campaign by 24/7 coverage of who’s ahead in the political horse race and which party or politician has been ensnared in scandal.  The media’s essential role of analyzing proposed legislation and holding elected feet to the fire is largely neglected, he says.

Thus what matters most in Washington these days is ideological purity, satisfying “the base” and scoring points on the opposition.  If the people’s business goes undone, that is just another opportunity to blame one’s enemies.

Both candidates in this year’s presidential race proclaim their determination to change how Washington operates.  I think both are sincere.  But brave words aside, what ails the political system is more than a President alone can fix.  We’ve been stuck so long in the permanent campaign rut that this polarization is now normal.  What can jar the system off dead center?  T. Boone Pickens could be a big part of the cure.  He wants to assemble an “army” of supporters to drive his plan forward.  Nearly 150,000 have signed up to date.  Not bad for just a couple months.  Numbers make a difference.

Here’s another important number: $58 million.  That’s what Pickens is spending on TV spot ads pushing his PickensPlan.  His ads are now running alongside all those political ads.  But guess what?  In early November the political ads will go away.  That will leave just T. Boone Pickens — the archetypal American entrepreneur with his charming drawl — wandering through our living rooms several times a day, talking about energy policy.  “Here’s what America needs to do.  Why are the President and Congress dragging their feet?  We’re spending $2 billion a day on imported oil!  Tell your senators and representative to get off the dime.”  

The PickensPlan makes sense as a first step toward a coherent, non-partisan energy policy which reduces our dependence on imported oil.  But along the way, the Texas oil tycoon may also help break up the permanent campaign approach to governing that now traps Washington, and all of us, in gridlock.  If so, his contribution could have lasting significance beyond the area of energy.  •••

— Fr. John +

T. Boone Pickens’ plan to reduce America’s dependence on imported oil by developing wind and solar farms makes sense as a first step toward a comprehensive energy policy.  But once the electricity is produced, you have to move it to the major population centers where it will be used.

In “Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits,” (New York Times, August 27, 2008) Matthew L. Wald reports that the 200-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm at Lowville, NY, has been forced to shut down periodically because transmission lines were too congested.  This farm is located on the Tug Hill plateau east of Lake Ontario and is known for its strong lake-effect weather patterns.  With a maximum elevation of 2,000 feet above sea level, this area is considered ideal for wind farming.  But no matter how abundant the breeze, when the electrical grid cannot handle Maple Ridge’s power, the farm has to turn off its turbines.

“The grid today,” Wald writes, “is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions.  It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.”  Yet what we need today, says Suedeen G. Kelly, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is “an interstate transmission superhighway system.”  As it stands the electrical grid’s lines and interconnections are too small; property owners do not want transmission lines and towers in their “back yards”; and power regulations and fees vary from state to state, complicating interstate transmission.  Reluctant to intrude on state government prerogatives, and wary of angering voters, Congress has avoided the problem for decades.

When Pickens says we need leadership in Washington to establish “transmission corridors,” he refers in part to improvements in the grid.  If you can’t move the power to market, no one will invest in wind and solar farming.  To get action on the grid we will have to lean on our state and federal legislators.  It’s unlikely they will make the necessary decisions without pressure and support from their constituents.

Here’s an idea.  Since most people think those big transmission towers are ugly, couldn’t we put them alongside existing interstate highways?  If an interstate’s designation ends in an even number, it’s probably going in roughly the right east-west direction.  An interstate is not a thing of beauty, except perhaps to an engineer.  There might be less “not in my back yard” kick if we keep the ugly stuff together as much as possible.

It seems Washington’s hand soon will be forced, in any case.  Demand for electricity is growing.  If supply and transmission capability fails to keep pace, then we could face blackouts like those that hit California in 2001 and the Midwest, Northeast, and Canada in 2003.  Congress doesn’t want a nation of (literally) unhappy campers!  Better our leaders should make these difficult decisions now, rather than later… by candlelight. 

For New York Times articles on the energy challenge, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html

— Fr. John +

One of the more interesting facets of the current political season is T. Boone Pickens and his plan to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.  The so-called Pickens Plan is a 2-step, 10-year effort.  First, Pickens would replace the 20+% of the electricity we now generate using natural gas with electricity generated by wind farms in the central U.S. and solar farms in the Southwest.  Second, Pickens would divert the freed-up natural gas to the transportation sector where it would initially power fleet vehicles — over the road semis, municipal garbage trucks, taxi cabs, etc. — and later private automobiles.

The Texas oil tycoon notes that we now spend $700 billion per year on imported oil.  Imports make up 70% of all the oil we use.  Before long we could be importing 80% of our oil.  Pickens claims his proposal would cut expenditures on imported oil by $300 billion, or over 40%.  That would buy us time to develop the electric, hydrogen, and/or other vehicles we will use in the future.  His plan is not a full solution, but a badly needed bridge, Pickens says.

As a lifelong Democrat, I find it odd to be cheering on a legendary Republican oil billionaire.  I do so because Pickens might actually be able to break our energy logjam.  I’m 63 years old.  We’ve worried about energy since I was in college.  We’ve described our dependence on foreign oil as a “crisis” since at least the mid-1970s.  Yet time and again, our attempts to resolve the energy problem have been derailed by political warfare in Washington.

Now Pickens has elbowed his way into the middle of this energy debate, and into the middle of this presidential campaign, with a sensible proposal.  With an estimated net worth of $3-7 billion, Pickens has sharp elbows!  He is spending $58 million on a national ad campaign — a modest investment on his part, given his resources — to tout his idea, and he’s using the Web to assemble an “army” of supporters.  Over a quarter million people have signed up.  In time Pickens will ask these people to lean on their legislators and demand action.  

The PickensPlan commends itself for the following reasons:

• It’s non-partisan.  What Pickens proposes has been embraced by both political parties and both presidential candidates.  However, he urges immediate action on this piece of the energy puzzle.  Neither McCain’s “Lexington Project” nor Obama’s “New Energy for America” puts wind, solar, and natural gas for fleets at the top of the punch list.  For the Obama and McCain energy positions, see:
• http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf 
• http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
• It relies on existing technologies.  Wind turbines, solar cells, and natural gas vehicles are all sitting there, ready to be used. 
• Much of it can be done with private investment rather than tax money.  Pickens himself is building a huge wind farm at Sweetwater, TX.  If his plan goes through, it is likely he will make a packet.  Some see his advocacy as self-interest.  However, I like to see people with big ideas put their own money on the table.
• Wind and solar farms would provide jobs and income in rural areas, saving some small farms, small towns, and small businesses — and small churches! — from extinction.

But note: for every ointment there is a fly.  The major problem with Pickens’ proposal is getting all this new electricity to market.  Pickens says we must have leadership in Washington, D.C. to establish the “transmission corridors” needed to move large loads of new wind- and solar-generated power from the American Outback to the major population centers where it will be used.  To quote the Prince of Denmark, “There’s the rub.”  Or more precisely, “There’s the Grid.”

More about this in another posting.

— Fr. John +

During the 1960s my family lived in the suburbs southeast of Cleveland.  Our house was a typical ranch to which a former owner had added a small sunporch built on a concrete slab.  With jalousie windows on three sides, the sunporch made a pleasant, breezy place to sit in good weather.  

But this porch did something quite remarkable in winter.  On clear, bright winter afternoons, the sun would shine through those jalousie windows and warm the porch’s cement floor.  Even with its leaky windows our sunporch would get toasty enough that we could sit out there for two or three hours, enjoying a snowy January landscape.  Then, as the sun dropped toward the horizon, the cement slab’s fund of stored heat would dissipate.

In retrospect, this was my introduction to what we now call “alternative sources of energy” — in this case passive solar heating, humankind’s oldest home heating system. 

A few years ago, as I began thinking about building a retirement home near Alpena, my architect recommended making the structure passive solar.  Bob Tinker of Kelly-Tinker Architects in Ann Arbor has long experience in designing new buildings and retrofitting existing structures for energy efficiency.  The memory of that toasty sunporch — an entirely unintentional “sun space” — convinced me that Bob’s recommendation made good sense.  We are now working on what I like to call version 3.0 of the design.  God and a bank willing, construction could start next spring.

The more I pondered my “high efficiency” retirement home plans, the more aware I became of how dreadfully inefficient most church physical plants are.  Many Episcopal congregations have inherited lovely but drafty structures from former generations.  Others have built new facilities on very tight budgets, with energy efficiency far down the list of priorities.  And raising capital funds to retrofit a worship center is no easy task.

Here at St. John’s in Grand Haven we recently replaced the windows on the upper level of our parish house.  We have a lot of windows!  It was a big investment!  But in a few years the parish will recoup its investment through savings on energy, and those who call St. John’s their church home 20 or 40 years from now will thank us.

That’s a point worth considering.  Churches make capital investments not just for the benefit of current members, but also for those who come after us.  If we enjoy an attractive, functional physical plant today, it is primarily because those who worshiped at St. John’s in the 1890s and 1920s and 1950s were willing to take risks and invest their hard-earned money in this church.  We stand on their shoulders, and others will stand on ours.

Here’s another point worth considering.  If it wishes to, a congregation can play a unique and influential leadership role in its community.  In my lifetime, churches have led the way in areas ranging from race relations to economic justice to war and peace.  More recently, church people from every corner of the country have led the way in rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.  I believe a congregation can also exercise leadership in the area of energy.  One form for the Prayers of the People asks God to give all of us “a reverence for the earth as your own creation, that we may use its resources rightly in the service of others and to your honor and glory.” (BCP p. 388)  If our prayers truly shape our faith and behavior, then we are called to give more than lip service to the problem of using and conserving the Lord’s natural resources.  In short, we should practice what we preach — and set a faithful, positive example for our members, communities, and government leaders.

— Fr. John +