• Definition of epistle from Pacific Yearly Meeting’s Faith and Practice: a public letter of greeting and ministry – such letters are sent from a Friends Meeting or organization to other Friends groups, to supply information, spiritual insight, and encouragement.
• The nine-year window of opportunity mentioned comes from the analysis of climatologists and policy people. In order to keep cumulative temperature increase below 2 C, we must do the following:
Step 1: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to 2005 levels, or perhaps 10% lower than 2005 levels, even as population and per capita consumption continue to increase. Without success in step 1, there is no step 2 that will work.
Step 2: reduce greenhouse gas emissions 60% or 60%+ or 60%++ by 2050 or earlier. Even as population and per capita consumption continue to increase.
Step 3: zero out carbon dioxide emissions to protect the oceans, which are acidifying as they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The writers of the epistle wanted to keep it short, and so emphasized only the first timeline; many Friends and many in the public believe that we have less to do and longer to do it in.
• Re Bob’s comment on the last post — he is right that people deserve acknowledgment for changes already made. (Brief pause to consider these changes, whether they were easy or hard, but to take credit for either.)
However, I have cut my own emissions and see clear means of cutting my emissions by 10% or more. Perhaps others do as well. I would think that most Americans, including those who emit less than the American average, could reduce our GHG emissions 10% without substantial harm or inconvenience.
I would be surprised to learn that changing policy is considered a third option. As I understand it, all need to be done simultaneously and immediately.
• Al Gore tells us in An Inconvenient Truth to labor with our legislators, and if that doesn’t work, replace them. To get some idea where your Senator is on climate change, see how they voted on the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. If your Senator voted against it, they may have justifications. They have no excuse.
“I would be surprised to learn that changing policy is considered a third option. As I understand it, all need to be done simultaneously and immediately.”
I think the difference here is purely verbal and could be remedied with a minor fix, such as the following:
“Even as we are changing our personal use of fossil fuels, labor with our legislators…” etc.
I don’t propose this as a final wording because it is pretty rough and needs refining, but something along those lines would make it more clear that the epistle is talking about simultaneous efforts. As it stands, it could be read either the way I interpreted it or the way it was intended—which means it needs more editing.