[AMENDED] Proposed AIW - World on Fire: Humanitarian Work and Climate Change

Stay with love. Stay with justice.

In the midst of natural disasters, advocates are needed for anti-racism work, for economic justice, for disability rights, and for related topics. Unitarian Universalists will do a lot of good if we bring our diversity, equity, and inclusion concerns into environmental protection programs and into FEMA projects.

Trying to separate human rights concerns from “climate activism” will move the UUA in the wrong direction. At the least, we’ll look inconsistent. Yesterday we affirmed human dignity in our first principle, but, maybe, the Unitarian Universalists will move to a different position by the end of the week. Critics will shrug their shoulders. What does the UUA want for humanity in an era of climate change?

Thank you. In some of the worst moments in history, discussions about “protecting Nature” have moved into racism, human population control, and the abandonment of the elderly and people with disabilities. Political leaders talk about “blood and soil” and detention camps start to look like concentration camps.

Unitarian Universalists can combine their human rights concerns with their environmental protection concerns. Call it “climate justice,” if you like. It’s an holistic approach and it’s needed. Keeping social justice separate from environmental protection causes some big problems.

The current crisis is compared to the sinking of the “Titanic.” Good comparison.

What happened when the “Titanic” started to sink? First class passengers received first-class service with reserved seats in the lifeboats. The poorest of the poor (and many crew members) were left behind.

2 Likes

My concern about this action is that it isn’t much of an action. What should the President do by invoking those 2 acts? Also, recognizing that a public emergency exists is a label. Should this AIW be more specific or is it intended to be general?

I think this AIW is great. Maybe next year we could have an AIW that asks UU’s to lobby to stop fossil fuels, and asks them to stop burning fossil fuels in their own lives: Stop the greenhouse gases that harm our BIPOC and overburdened siblings. It’s painful to think of UU’s saying, “I’m going to drive my gasoline car and run my gas furnace, and I can’t be bothered to write my representatives about fossil fuels, but I love you and I’ll do what I can to help you survive my pollution as comfortably as possible.” Many UU’s here have gotten fossil fuels out of their lives and investments. Many UU’s here demonstrate and lobby their representatives to stop fossil fuels. And too many UU’s do not – not for lack of caring, but because we have not been clear enough.

1 Like

I get the frustration with questions about extreme weather and inadequate housing and especially about farmworkers. In the Pacific Northwest, our farmworkers (particularly undocumented migrants) are impacted all year-round suffering from frostbite, drowning (flooding), respiratory problems (wildfire smoke), etc. all of which are on the increase because of climate changes. Folks who live in areas with varying seasonal temperatures know what inadequate housing are especially for those folks on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

There is a HUGE connection between climate change and social justice. That’s not what’s being questioned. My concern, again, goes back to the 5-year bar on future AIWs that could potentially be written to inform, education and activate for specific kinds of issues and actions that will definitely require our faith’s attention and action for either or/and social and environmental justice issues. I haven’t seen any comments addressing what might be potentially barred. If we are expecting this AIW to carry us through on all climate justice issues for the next five years, then I am very concerned that we could preclude our faith from delving deeper into climate justice issues and engaging in more meaningful actions and address issues that we may be unaware of right now.

I just need the 5-year bar question answered.

1 Like

There are factors that you might not be considering: Wealthy people can plant trees. They can use their air conditioners to keep themselves cool while increasing heat for others. They can afford time off work to rest. If they work, it is likely too be in an air conditioned building, not a shadeless field, where in states like
Florida, communities are not allowed to require that they be given water breaks. Cities are almost always hotter than their suburbs, even suburbs without trees. Pavement absorbs sunlight and re-radiates it as heat, while vehicle exhaust and engine heat also cause hotter conditions. Poorer people are likely t o have poorer access to health care. this is only the beginning of the list. And wealthy urban neighborhoods do have more and larger trees than poorer urban neighborhoods.

1 Like

5 year bar: The CSW determined that this proposed AIW is different in focus from the previous AIW.

There seems to be some confusion about Actions of Immediate Witness and climate change.

First: It’s important to understand the difference between an Action of Immediate Witness and a Statement of Conscience. The importance of Business Resolutions should also be understood.

By definition, an Action of Immediate Witness is usually a statement about an immediate problem that needs immediate attention. It expresses the concerns of a particular General Assembly. For this year, each AIW is restricted to 750 words.

In contrast, a Statement of Conscience is a major policy statement that requires at least three years of study, conversation, and reflection, with significant congregational involvement. Typically, there will be a series of General Assembly presentations focused on the topic. The UUA Bylaws require reports on implementation after the final statement is endorsed.

A Business Resolution is a major statement that directs UUA actions.

Second: It’s also important to understand the history of UUA involvement with climate change.

A major Statement of Conscience about climate change was endorsed in 2006. In 2014, a Business Resolution called on the UUA to stop investing in the fossil fuel industry. There have been at least ten other General Assembly statements that address climate-related topics. The Green New Deal has been endorsed. The Green Sanctuary program has been endorsed. There has been a major statement endorsed that calls for “ethical eating” in a damaged environment.

Suggestion: There will be an opportunity in the Fall, 2024, to develop new proposals for Statements of Conscience and Business Resolution. Climate change is a huge problem that requires major attention. More than 750 words will be needed.

Third: What are the immediate climate concerns that need immediate attention? Why do we need an AIW?

First: North America is caught in a terrible heat wave. Fires are out of control in the Western states. Southern Florida has its floods. And there are other problems developing for the days ahead. This year’s AIW calls for humanitarian action.

Community and labor groups want President Biden to declare that a national emergency exists.

If the emergency declaration happens, agencies like FEMA and the CDC and OSHA will be directed to take immediate action. In some ways, it will be like the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Extreme heat will no longer be “something that state government manages.” Climate change will be recognized as a major concern for the whole nation.

Second: This year’s climate change AIW combines social justice concerns with environmental protection work. Some congregations separate their social justice efforts from their environmental protection projects. That’s a problem.

The UUA needs one vision for justice. We need to bring our diversity, equity, and inclusion concerns into emergency services programs and into “sustainability” work. We need to oppose systemic racism, economic injustice, and other forms of oppression in all places. And we need to make this effort in the midst of hot weather and hurricane season. ASAP.

In some places, what’s needed is good Samaritan work. Congregations can provide displaced people with emergency shelter. Fundraisers for the UUA’s disaster relief fund and for the UUSC will be needed during the next ninety days. In many places, what’s needed is mutual aid and community and labor empowerment. Listen to the people in your area who are on the frontlines for this year’s disasters. What do they request? How can your congregation be helpful? ASAP.

Many churches close for the summer “because of the hot weather.” We need to rethink that strategy.

Questions about future AIWs? What’s needed is a Statement of Conscience or a Business Resolution or both. As this year’s waves and wildfires come to an end in October, start pushing for a strong climate change program. AIWs can do a bit of consciousness-raising. AIWs can keep the climate discussion alive. Still, there’s a need to get beyond the AIWs.

1 Like

Thank you, but I’m concerned with the writing of future AIWs.

My concern is with what is posted on the AIW webpage (Action of Immediate Witness (AIW) Process for 2024)

"An AIW must not:

  1. Duplicate an AIW admitted in the past 5 years."

The question is, if someone wanted to propose another more specific climate justice AIW next year or the year after, would they be able to do so if this AIW passes? How about if someone wants to propose an AIW on the LGBTQAI+ community’s access to healthcare and social services? Since it’s called out in this AIW, would any proposals in the next five years be rejected?

Again, there is absolutely no argument about the critical nature of climate change and its impacts on and intersections with other justice issues or the urgency to address it. It’s about timing and making sure hands are free to move as needed and when needed. Five years is a long time to wait because we didn’t understand the process, not to mention that, in some cases, we don’t have five years. Hands are tied enough as it is, don’t want to create a noose, too.

1 Like

Hi, Deborah,
What is your concern centered on?
Cat

When we use militaristic language such as ‘battle’ we focus our attention on ‘fighting,’ instead of loving. I would love to engage in conversations with fellow UUs that are centered in love and compassion – for the Earth and for all people living on and with our Earth.

In Canada, there is a heartbreaking problem for chronically ill patients – when people with severe disabilities seek accommodations and care, the very first option/‘suggestion’ they are presented with is ‘assisted suicide,’ or what we might refer to as ‘death with dignity.’

I was absolutely horrified upon hearing this … in my mind, most proponents of death with dignity have been those with terminal illnesses who wish to die on their own terms, at times of their own choosing, rather than face prolonged pain and suffering as their illnesses progress – particularly illnesses that have no cure or even possible treatment options that would improve quality of life. The idea of people with severe mental health conditions (including myself) and others with chronic (but NOT life-threatening) conditions being encouraged to simply end their lives, rather than being offered the care they need to thrive (which is absolutely available), is just … like I said, heartbreaking and horrifying.

This may seem tangential, but I hope some may see the inextricable connections between encouraging people to end their lives, and encouraging people to refrain from creating life.

The arguments you put forward about encouraging people to terminate pregnancies and/or ‘choose’ sterilization are simply discriminatory toward those living in poverty and those without access to the community resources, healthcare, and general support that more affluent people are afforded.

Please consider the extensive evidence that when people do have access to health care and comprehensive community support – when we are not struggling to survive day-to-day – we DO choose to have fewer children, and/or no children at all. The birth rates in ‘developed countries’ (I apologize, I despise that term) are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than those in … good hell I’m not even going to say that.

The reality of our world is, wealthier people and those with ‘higher education’ (good grief so many problematic phrases) choose to have fewer children, when they have the ample resources enabling them a far greater variety of options for the kinds of life they wish to lead … greater educational and career options, etc. This is not only the case in ‘other countries,’ but in neighborhoods and homes directly adjacent to people with greater wealth.

I truly don’t understand how people cannot see that wealthy people – including young people – have so, so many more choices re: pregnancy and bearing/raising children. YES absolutely people who wish to terminate pregnancies, of any age or class, should absolutely have those desires fulfilled. NO ONE should ever be forced (or even ‘encouraged,’ which usually is just strong social pressure) to carry a child against their will.

But the fact remains that affluent people of all ages have more options. They can terminate all the pregnancies they choose, for so many more ‘socially acceptable’ reasons, whereas communities of historically and currently marginalized people simply do not have access to the resources to make those choices.

Who would we be taking ‘choice’ and ‘consent’ away from, were we to implement policies to control/decrease population growth? Never the wealthy. Disproportionately ‘encouraging’ people living in poverty to control/decrease the growth of their families is genuinely anathema in my mind, so, so contrary to values that I hold for equity, inclusion, accessibility, universal access to health care, housing, clean water and air, etc. If we truly wish to control/decrease population growth, we should be working for economic justice, period. The wealthier and more educated humans are, the fewer children we choose to bear – without any external pressure or control or ‘encouragement.’

How could we possibly encourage/pressure people to ‘choose’ not to bear children without our own personal prejudices coming into play? How often do we hear (or even think ourselves) – “They can’t afford to care for the child, they shouldn’t have children;” etc.

How about we focus our efforts and energy, rather than discussing the potential ‘benefits’ of ‘addressing overpopulation,’ on ensuring that ALL PEOPLE have access to the information and resources and community care and support that will empower us all to ‘choose’ options for our lives that are simply inaccessible to the vast majority of our current human population?

Thank you, to anyone who read this extensive ‘wall of text.’ I whole-heartedly support this AIW. Thank you to the writers.

I’m being told that if this AIW passes, there can be no other climate justice AIWs for five years and that is alarming. If that’s the case, then I cannot support this AIW and will certainly hope it doesn’t pass so that other AIWs that are more thoroughly thought through and better crafted can be proposed. I appreciate folks’ attempt at this but it’s weak and disjointed and there needs to be significantly more work to define (identify and call out might be better word choices) climate justice, climate impacts on marginalized communities, impacts on our natural communities (e.g. endangered species as a matter of justice), etc. Calls to action will need to be considered based upon geography as not everyone is impacted in the same way and more focused in a way that doesn’t prevent other actions from being brought forward.

There are any number of barriers that already make it difficult to bring climate justice to a place where action can be taken in time. These include local policies and regulations, state policies, legislation and regulations and national policies, legislation and regulations, international treaties. There’s a bureaucracies on local, state and federal and for some of us international levels (I live right next the the Canadian border). There’s the local, state, national and international judicial system. There’s language barriers, cultural barriers, economic barriers, educational barriers, etc. that we already have to work around. There is also the intersection of other justice issues health, race/ethnicity, gender and gender identification, economics/class, age, and on. There are sustainability issues, there are Rights of Nature issues and a whole myriad of other issues and each has its place and has to be considered along with the others. There are also issues that we are not aware of today, that will come to light in the days to come.

I’ve been engaged with environmental issues for five decades and we’ve reached the point where there are some issues and areas that don’t have five years without experiencing more than disastrous consequences. This includes Tribal folks being displaced by sea level rises, struggles for keystone species already on the endangered species lists, fossil fuel projects destroying water sources and air and land contamination, food insecurity and disruption of the food chain, increase in infectious diseases, and this list goes on a ways, too.

The 5-year bar spooks me because I don’t want to close the door and the 5-year bar does just that, so we have to be careful about what gets put forward. The current AIW needs to be narrowed down so that if it passes there can still be room for other proposals later on down the line. It’s tough enough to do on local, state, national and international levels, I don’t need my faith to make it difficult, too. Yes, I can continue to do things as I have been, but there will very likely be times in the next five years where this faith will need to move as a whole again.

I also need to know if certain sections/passages within an AIW are subject to the 5-year bar. Example:

"Individuals have been denied healthcare and social services because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The General Assembly supports amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against LGBTQI plus people. Federal money should be withheld from emergency services programs and other programs that permit unlawful discrimination.”

There is nothing here to tie climate change to the LGBTQAI+ community, first off. Secondly, if the AIW passes, does that mean someone is prevented from proposing an AIW next year that tries to address LGBTQAI+ healthcare access or need for social services whether it’s related to climate or not?

Does that clarify?

Today (Thursday) is the day when the questions may be answered for Unitarian Universalists.

The impact of climate change is here and now. Television reports explain the immediate crisis.

Millions of people in the United States are caught in life-threatening situations. Wildfires, floods, heat waves, etc. In the midst of today’s disasters, houseless people, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups (including many LGBTQI plus people) are being abused or abandoned. The movie “Cooked: Survival By Zip Code” explains what happens during extreme heat. There are some big problems in detention centers, emergency shelters, nursing homes, prisons, and in other institutions.

BIPOC communities and working people are organizing in self-defense. Disability rights activists and houseless people and people who are living in inadequate housing are organizing. There’s a need for local action and there’s a need for national and global action. Organized religion can be helpful.

Big questions: “Will this year’s General Assembly respond to the here-and-now problems in the environment?”
Will we listen to what’s being said in high-risk communities? Will we provide immediate support and will we help to create the social justice partnerships that are needed during difficult times?

Today’s Action of Immediate Witness will answer the questions. A “yes” vote is needed.

A “do nothing” response will take Unitarian Universalists down the road to “nothing.” We’ll abandon the people who need our support today. We’ll fail to act when immediate action is needed. If we refuse to help our neighbors when help is requested, why should our neighbors believe that Unitarian Universalists will be useful ten or thirty years from now? We’ll be judged by our actions during today’s crisis.

2 Likes

I read your self-described wall of text and loved it. Why walk on eggshells? You will not be cancelled for saying “developing countries”, I can assure you.
I would like to move away from pressuring or even encouraging smaller families. I don’t think it is necessary. I think women, once empowered, will choose smaller families on average. And those who choose a large family will probably be good mothers. So, in my mind the focus should be on ending patriarchal society worldwide, empowering women, and making the best contraceptive technology abundant and free. Yes, that includes better conraceptive methods for men.

Hi Deb,

I am consulting with the CSW this year as former staff liaison to them before I retired. AIWs are supposed to be specific actions, especially to join specific campaigns. This AIW was admitted for its focus on this summer. The CSW criteria of not duplicating is not in relation to broad categories. So if there are specific campaigns in the next 5 years to reduce emissions, get the military emissions counted, join indigenous activists in protection, support youth in a specific campaign etc. etc. those would certainly not be precluded.

7 Likes

Thanks, Susan. Good to know.

2 Likes

Oh, excellent Susan! I so appreciate you! Thank you, thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

2 Likes

Could this short description of the bar be put on the website so folks going in with proposals don’t misunderstand it like I did?

1 Like

You are very welcome! You are so right more is needed for climate justice Deb.