An Electrical Experiment

A few months ago, I read Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. About halfway through the book, he describes what life will be like in the energy-efficient future. He tells about how your house has a Smart Black Box (SBB) that manages all of your home's energy usage - lighting, temperature, appliances, TV, etc. The SBB can tell you how much energy each of your appliances uses, and each appliance can be programmed to run when you'd like. Many people choose to have them run whenever electricity is the cheapest - usually nights and weekends. This is possible because in the future, utility companies offer different rates and plans that correspond with demand and load. So it's possible to keep your costs down by using you washing machine when demand for electricity is lower, and shutting them down when it's higher. You win in cost, the utility companies win by spreading out demand and load, the environment wins because fewer power plants are needed and renewable energy sources can play a bigger role.

Imagine my surprise when I received an offer in the mail last week from my electric company offering me this service! I had no idea the future was so close!

Now, I've only summarized a small part of what Friedman describes in his book, and my electric company has offered me only part of my summary. But it was close enough to get my attention! For a small monthly fee, they will install a meter that records our hourly electricity usage. They will also publish online how much electricity costs each hour of the day. And while we can't program our appliances to run at certain times, we can look at the rates and choose to run the washing machine when electricity is cheaper. If you sign up, you have to stay in the program for a year.

My husband and I looked at each other and said, "Should we do it?" Philosophically, we are both in favor, but I realized as we deliberated that the future is not yet here. There's just not enough information. Our electric company can't tell us anything about our various appliances' current energy usage, so how big a difference will shifting our dishwashing hours make? Are we going to save a couple of cents? Several dollars? Will we save enough to make up for the monthly cost of the new, hourly meter? Will we end up paying more than we do now when, in August, the air conditioner runs pretty constantly and we're stuck with high-demand rates during the day? Is this actually a stupid financial decision? Even though we favor the concept, we hesitated.

But in the end, we decided to try it. I like Friedman's vision, and someone has to be an early-adopter on the path to the energy-efficient future. Why not us? If we're lucky, it will save us money, too. So we mailed in the enrollment form. I'll keep you posted.

-Nancy Michaelis

Our Lenten Fast

Just about everyone on the World Hunger team has decided to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays through Lent. I think I'm personally going to give up meat for the whole of Lent (Mary, are you still up for it?). I am actually very excited about it--we will use the fast as an opportunity to be in solidarity with those who never eat meat, we will explore ways in which we can consume less meat more regularly, and we will be able to share recipes and experiences, some of which will find their way onto the blog. (FYI, some of us will be using the new LWF cookbook, Food for Life, to help us with recipes.)

When I've told people of my plans, I've seen several reactions. Since fasting can be in some ways a foreign discipline to our consumer driven culture, I thought I would briefly share what has (and what has not) motivated me to give up meat for Lent.

First, I find that fasts break up the routine. In so doing, they help me to live more intentionally, to be more present. For example, in the coming weeks when I find myself wanting a hamburger, I will use that opportunity to remember those who are hungry, to offer prayers that they be filled, and to remember my own dependence on God.

Second, I think that how we live our lives matters. It is great to give money to help in the fight against hunger (and your gifts in the current economic climate matter more than ever). That said, we also need to strive to live our lives in ways that do not exacerbate global hunger. I have spoken on this blog about the ways in which over consumption of meat in the U.S. impacts the availability of food. I see this as a way to explore in my own life how I can eat less meat (honestly, I've never tried to go meatless and I'm not sure how I will go about it--I better start researching!).

Third, this is not about piety. My colleague Rodger Prois reminded me of the Small Catechism, where Luther reminds Christians that "Fasting and bodily preparation are in fact a fine external discipline, but a person who has faith in these words, 'given for you' and 'shed for you for the forgiveness of sin,' is really worthy and well prepared." A fast then is not a way to find particular favor with God or to gain some spiritual authority that can be wielded over less committed persons of faith.

From the length of this post (and its meanderings), I suspect you can tell that I'm still working to articulate my ideas on the whole thing. I welcome your feedback and comments.

David Creech

Train Reading

Today on the train I read several articles that relate to my work here at World Hunger. I suppose this is not surprising given the current economic situation.

Paul Krugman commented on the Federal Reserve open market committee's prediction that "unemployment would remain substantially above its longer-run sustainable rate at the end of 2011, even absent further economic shocks" and that "more than five to six years would be needed for the economy to converge to a longer-run path characterized by sustainable rates of output growth and unemployment and by an appropriate rate of inflation." It looks like the Church will have several opportunities to offer food and drink "to the least of these" for quite some time.

David Brooks explained why those who are in part responsible for this mess need to nonetheless receive governement aid. Apparently that old biblical adage that it rains on both the just and the unjust still holds true.

Perhaps the most compelling article to me described the increased use of food pantries and how the "next layer of people" (secretaries, nurse's aids, child care workers, and so on) have begun to seek help. What I was most struck by (and I'm still formulating my thoughts on it) is the shame that many of these people felt for seeking help in a food pantry. I think it reveals implicit assumptions about people who need this kind of aid and the stigma that being needy carries.
I found myself thinking about the assumptions that I bring to the table when I think about those who are most vulnerable. How would I feel about myself if I found myself in their shoes? What misguided assumptions do I need to actively address?

David Creech

Back to Beef

I just read an interesting report from the Global Policy Forum that makes important connections between food and finance. One little factoid that struck me: more than half of U.S. grain and nearly 40% of world grain is being used to feed livestock. The author of the report cites a 1997 news release from a Cornell ecologist who suggests that the U.S. could feed 800 million people with the grain that livestock eat. Granted, not all the grain that cattle eat is suitable for human consumption (thank you Mark Goetz for pointing that out to me), but again this underscores for me how lowering our own meat consumption could be an effective way to lower food costs and perhaps improve food distribution (to say nothing of the amazing environmental benefits of consuming less meat).

On a related note, Lent is just nine days away (and yes, as you may have already guessed, it is my favorite church season). One way to experiment with consuming less meat would be to practice the ancient and venerable tradition of abstaining from meat on Fridays (and Wednesdays if you wish!) for the six weeks of Lent. Or if you're adventurous, you could fast from meat for the whole 40 days. I am tempted to do just that, and I would probably succumb to peer pressure if I heard from enough people who would join me...

David Creech

Hunger Rumblings will periodically highlight the work of organizations that received financial support through an ELCA Hunger Education/Advocacy grant in 2008. We hope you are as inspired by these stories of our faith in action as we have been!

Tour de Revs – 100 Days for Hunger and Wellness
www.tourderevs.org
2008 ELCA World Hunger Education Grant Recipient

The 2008 ELCA Hunger Education/Advocacy grant was used to plan for the 2009 Tour de Revs Bicycle Ride, and to create a promotional DVD and other printed materials. From May 13 – August 20, three ELCA pastors from the West Virginia/Western Maryland synod will ride over 13,000 miles on a bamboo bicycle built for three to increase awareness of world hunger and generate financial support for the ELCA World Hunger Appeal. Tour de Revs will be making stops at each ELCA synod, the 2009 ELCA Youth Gathering and the ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

A prologue ride was taken to all the congregations of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod in September, 2008, with much success. In the evenings, most churches hosted a dinner and invited the community, resulting in contributions to ELCA World Hunger of over $2000 (some of those funds were also matched by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans). The prologue ride received a lot of press, allowing many people outside the Lutheran church to learn about ELCA world hunger efforts through local and state newspaper coverage. We expanded our audience further by posting a promotional DVD on YouTube where it has been viewed over 1,100 times, and by creating a group on Facebook that has gained over 200 members.

Two of the three Tour de Revs pastors were at Camp Luther, the synod’s youth summer camp. Interest in the ride and in hunger issues became a secondary part of the camp experience. Some campers gave much of their money brought from home to World Hunger instead of buying treats at the camp store as they had originally intended. At the end of the week, over $2000 had been raised – an amount made even more significant and touching given the average camper age was 13.

Tour de Revs and the grant from ELCA World Hunger have caused many churches in the WV-WMD synod to rethink their commitment to ending world hunger and increase their giving to ELCA World Hunger. One church indicated a planned increase in ELCA World Hunger giving of 400% for 2009! We hope that by the end of the Tour de Revs ride many more congregations around the country will respond in as generous a manner.

Connie Twedt
Tour de Revs

posted by Erin Cummisford

How Should I Respond?

Last night while perusing the New York Times online, I ran across this little article. It outlines just how difficult it would be for those poor Wall Street executives to live on a measly $500,000 a year. The article spells out the cost of maintaining an executive lifestyle: the cost of a nanny, private school, personal trainer, summer houses, European vacations, charity galas, and so on. The article concludes that at least 1.6 million dollars a year is needed to live comfortably as an executive.

What is troubling to me is that we find ourselves in very difficult circumstances due to (at least in part) the greed of Wall Street. As I noted in a previous post, by the time we begin to emerge from this downturn, as many as 50 million people in the U.S. could be living below the poverty line. That'll be nearly one-sixth of the U.S. population dealing with the stresses of basic needs like food, housing, and health care.

So, my first reaction to this article is less than empathetic. I think that watching the Catholic Charities Poverty Tour offers a far more compelling case for fair compensation (if you've not seen it yet, take five minutes to do so now).

But is my response fair?

David Creech

A Little Reality Check

I am working my way through the Bread for the World Institute's 2009 hunger report (which is well worth your time!). I came across this little statistic that is both frightening and hopeful.

According to a 2008 poll, 47% of likely voters in the U.S. think that we give too little to reduce the global hunger problem. That means that over half of likely voters think that we either give enough or too much. Over half!

The frightening part is this: the U.S. allocates a paltry .16% of the federal budget to development assistance. The commitment we made to the Millenium Development Goals was .7%. We consistently rank near the bottom of the industrialized nations in money devoted to development assistance. In fact, we spend less than half of the average of those nations. In short, we're not pulling our weight.

Now to the hopeful part: in 2003, nearly 3/4 of likely voters (73%) thought that we gave either enough or too much in foreign development assistance. That's a 20 point swing in only four years.

Let's continue to get the word out. Let's see if we can move 20 more points closer to reality.

David Creech

A Little Whimsy

Where our food comes from and how it's produced is no laughing matter. But this video is just too much fun to pass up! Whether you agree with what the video has to say or not, it's certainly an entertaining way to get a conversation started. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

-Nancy Michaelis

My heart is moved by all I cannot save...

A beautiful poem by Adrienne Rich sent to me from one of my traveling partners, Kim Winchell:

My heart is moved by all I cannot save,
so much has been destroyed.
I have to cast my lot with those
who age after age, perversely,
with no extraordinary power
reconstitute the world.

David Creech