chris

Community United Church of Christ in Raleigh is one of three Cool Congregation 2016 winners! The Cool Congregations program, through national Interfaith Power & Light, is designed to support faith communities as they “walk the talk” by reducing their own carbon footprint, thus helping to cool the planet.

Community United Church of Christ (CUCC) took to heart the mission of making the world a better place. They did this in two ways:

• Installing solar panels to reduce the church’s own carbon footprint and
• Helping those in their community most impacted by climate change to weatherize their homes.

The results were impressive– the church was able to reduce its CO2 by 7 tons per year and the weatherized homes saved energy (6 tons of CO2 reduction), and benefited from lower energy bills and more comfortable homes.

As CUCC started thinking about this project they recognized that the biggest impact of a changing climate would be on the poor because they would not be able to adapt as readily as the affluent. As people of faith, this challenged them to address climate change and to ensure that the poor would not be left behind. The project was led and organized by the Justice in a Changing Climate Task Force (JCC) that was formed to explore and recommend solutions to mitigate the negative effects on nature and humanity from an atmosphere overheated by excessive fossil fuel consumption.

Home Weatherization

The task force invited 15 other congregations to participate in the weatherization program. To date 21 homes have been weatherized through the program by volunteers from the congregations. In addition to decreasing energy use and increasing home comfort, the program brings together and motivates volunteers from local congregations.

Solar Array

In addition to helping those in need in their community, the church wanted to reduce its own carbon foot print and decided to install a solar array to generate electricity from the sun and lower electricity costs. The congregation was in favor, but stipulated that the system could not be paid for from the church’s general fund. All the money was raised from a capital campaign with gifts from both congregational members and from people outside the church. The campaign was so successful that there was enough money to install the solar array and award seed grants to four other non-profit organizations to initiate their own solar projects. CUCC’s solar array was completed and went online in November 2015 and the church’s main building now receives half of its electricity from solar panels on its roof. One thousand dollars a year in energy bill savings is now being directed into church missions and the church building is setting a positive example for other congregations and nonprofits inspired to initiate their own solar projects.

Since its inception in 2007, the JCC, through its outstanding leadership, has inspired churches from other denominations and individuals to join the efforts to provide the poor with some relief from the real and potential devastation of climate change and championed the vision for a healthier stewardship of God’s creation.

To read about the other two winners visit the announcement link here!

An ethical debate is a bit of a juxtaposition. As we know ethics are a set of moral principles. It is how we understand right from wrong. So how can what is right and what is wrong be up for debate? In Carl Sigel’s post on the “Caring for Creation” section of the Church of the Nativity webpage he discusses the two main types of ethical practices in the agricultural world. Continuing with the use of Robert Zimdahl’s term “productionist ethic” and Aldo Leopold’s term “land ethic” we place in front of us two incredibly distinct approaches to the western agrarian world. How can these two beliefs of right and wrong differ so greatly when talking about the same industry?

One argument I have read in favor of the productionist paradigm and its “ethics” is that with more high-tech input (which the 21st century seems to be quite proud of) comes more output. With more output can come the food justice of ending hunger around the world. Now this comes with the assumption that food distribution is equal and fair. That sounds very ethical at first glance. Unfortunately, however, food is not evenly distributed in our own state let alone the world.

An article published by CNBC in 2013 appropriately named “A hungry world: Lots of food, in too few places” argues that we have 2 to 3 times the amount of food that is needed to feed the global population. On top of food distribution we have the issue of financial means to buy the food.

My question is: Does the ethical argument of the productionist paradigm outweigh the effects of its “high-tech input”? Often the input required to produce large scale farming of the same crop on the same land year after year is devastating to the land and surrounding communities. Fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and livestock waste (which are often supplemented by antibiotics and hormones) are just a few of the contaminants that can harm the soil, water, and air in and around the farms. In my opinion, no, the pros do not outweigh the cons but maybe there is another ethical advantage of the productionist agriculture that will convince me otherwise. Or maybe not.

Written by Michelle Peedin, NCIPL Program Associate

Michelle was born in Durham and raised in Hillsborough, North Carolina. She continued her education at UNC Chapel Hill where she graduated with a degree in Global Studies with a concentration in Economics, Trade and Development. Identifying as half Peruvian, Michelle’s area of study was Latin America. She was blessed with the opportunity to study in Ireland and volunteer in Costa Rica during her undergraduate time. She continued her journey as a fellow at Student Action with Farmworkers, a non-profit organization in Durham, NC. Michelle is excited to reflect on and empower the communities in NC to push forward for social and environmental justice. She enjoys weekend trips, reading, arts & crafts, and sushi.

Contact Michelle: michelle@ncipl.org