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

Chiming in here as a member of the CSW to confirm what Susan Leslie said above, that the CSW’s meaning behind the rule of not repeating topics is about specific calls. Climate change is an ongling issue, so a broad statement about climate change could only happen every 5 years, and might not happen at all if it’s too broad so doesn’t address the “immediate” part of an AIW. But calls to address specific issues around climate change, like pending legislation, can happen more frequently. It’s all in how they’re written!

3 Likes

Yes.

I see why you want this LBGTQ language taken out, or a statement from CSW about it.

| dwcruz DeborahCruz
June 20 |

  • | - |

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?

1 Like

I don’t believe that it would, but I suggest writing to gaonlinesupport@uua.org to get a contact at the Commission on Social Witness, who could answer directly. You might also ask the tellers in the Zoom room (breakout, I think)—it used to be a procedural line question, but that line has been eliminated.

1 Like

One of the best features of this AIW is the specific call to action - “calls on the President of the United States to invoke the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act to recognize that a public health emergency now exists in the United States caused by climate change.”

I do not see how this AIW could prevent other climate-related calls to action in the future unless it again included this language. Please let me know if you think this is incorrect.

1 Like

Hey, RuthEllen. I used to feel the same. It can feel really overwhelming when we consider all the stuff that’s happening at once that needs our attention. What if we reframed this as an intersectional issue. Check out Kimberley Crenshaw, who suggests a “framework for understanding how various aspects of individual identity—including race, social class, and sexuality —interact to create unique experiences of privilege or oppression.” Our own UU Green Sanctuary effort relies on this framework to approach climate change as it intersects with privilege and oppression. Once we see it this way, it is both more comprehensive and (if not easier), a more powerful way to address the climate crisis. Because it’s about protecting our beloved community of humans and all beings on the earth.

3 Likes

I disagree, not with the specific action, that is great, but with the contention that this is a good AIW because it has one suggested action. Those congregations who actually use AIWs and the UUA staff that supports them need a much longer list of possible actions for this summer. Yes, there are suggestions woven throughout but following the usual format of an AIW is a really good idea. I can’t support it as written because I think it will “sit on the shelf” after maybe a Board president drafts a letter to the US president. Thanks for the effort and I hope we this will be our Statement of Conscience next year.

1 Like

AND we should keep the global perspective in mind. Developing nations are bearing the worst of climate crisis impact and have fewer resources for mitigation while the U.S. and Europe create far more carbon emissions per capita and need to do MUCH more to slow down/eliminate all that.

1 Like

The invocation of the Stafford and the National Emergencies Acts is huge and has been proposed by FEMA.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11696

I didn’t want to have it removed, just the clarification that future attempts for LGBTQAI+ AIW proposals didn’t get blocked because something was incorporated into this AIW.

1 Like

Having read more, this was accepted for this summer’s actions, nothing to prevent discussion LGBTQAI+ healthcare-access issues that arise between now and GA 2025. Federal money will be spent on disaster recovery and healthcare this summer; this AIW addresses how it should be spent and withheld.

2 Likes

Yes. This is an issue related to intersectionality. I’ve seen that many in UU-land tend to speak of people as members of only one oppressed group at a time. The Covid-response AIW also speaks to the differential oppression of people who belong to multiple oppressed groups. Members of oppressed groups are more likely to experience health conditions that make them more vulnerable to Covid and other increasing viruses. Unless we move to increase access for immunocompromised people, we allow disproportionate difficulties of access for members of other oppressed groups as well. The same is true of climate change. Its effects fall disproportionately on those already oppressed in the US, as well as those oppressed via imperialism all over the world, especially in the global south.

4 Likes

Hi Evan, I don’t think you are speaking from an urban population which is where 80% of the people live.

Hi, I run a day drop in center for the sheltered and unsheltered that is open during 5 winter months for 4 hours a day. Last winter we swiveled to 24 hours due to extreme cold, and we have already been approached to prepare to operate a cooling center when needed this summer.

Extreme weather is a danger to us all, but less extreme weather is fatally dangerous to people beaten down by the struggles of living on our streets, and in my town the sheltered have to roam the streets all day because its just an overnight shelter.

I support this AIW.

5 Likes

Where I am (central Kentucky) we are already in our second week of weather with temperatures in the 90’s degree Fahrenheit and summer only just started today. I am not looking forward to July and August.

The fires have already started out this direction. I’m so worried about Smoke Season. It breaks my heart all the animals exposed to all that terrible smoke, unhoused folks, folks without access to air filtration. Thank you to the AIW proposers.

2 Likes

I am seeking the understand this proposed better around this action. This US law enable the president activate FEMA - but direct it where?

It is hard to know in advance. The proposers are from Florida, where hurricane season has started and every year creates havoc, and they see first-hand the devastation and its unequal, severe effects on those with substandard (or no) shelter, limited income, etc… The goal as I understand it is to ensure that UUs prepare for the dangerous heat expected this season, for the wildfires, etc., and to encourage the federal government to take action sooner rather than later; to use the resources at its disposal to help the most vulnerable.

2 Likes

Thanks for this perspective.
Ruth

@Sally Thank you, that context of the location of the proposers helps me to understand the intention better. As a climate-change fueled natural disaster unfolds, people on the margins have the fewer resources to prepare and protect their wellbeing. So, in activating FEMA prior to a single emergency event, it seems to be about routing $$$ and resources to pro-active disaster preparedness. Perhaps the corollary would be how we have $$$ and resources for military preparedness without any special activation based on any one military threat. I’m not sure if that’s the intention of the proposers or not. Just my interpretation.

I think that is a good corollary—and looking at the balance of $$ in the federal budget for military and for disaster relief is sobering as we approach even more climate chaos.