Friday, June 10, 2016

I am PCUSA ... and PRO-Fossil Fuel ... another reason why

In the Presbyterian Church USA's debate over divestment of church funds from fossil fuel producers, there are some considerations that are not being presented, especially when it comes to oil and natural gas. Here is one I would like to present. Those who are demanding that we "Keep It in the Ground" may not realize ... it's NOT just oil we'd be keeping in the ground .

While it's true that a large majority of oil and natural gas is devoted to fuel for transportation and energy. There are a LOT of what we call petroleum by-products ... materials derived from crude oil (petroleum) as it is processed in oil refineries. Here is a partial list (compiled by Edmond, Oklahoma-based Ranken Energy) of an estimated 6,000 products made, in one way or another, from petroleum by-products ...

This is NOT to say that we continue to burn as much oil as we possibly can. Here is where a comprehensive energy package - one that includes oil and natural gas - comes into play. The power needed in factories to manufacture the products listed above could come from a wide variety of alternative energy sources whose availability has grown dramatically in recently years.

Another item I would like to submit for your consideration ... use of these petroleum by-products could actually help reduce your carbon footprint in some ways. Take local transportation for example ... think about getting around town with some petroleum by-products - bicycles and bicycle helmets, backpacks and athletic shoes - instead of automobiles.

This is one more reason why I am asking Presbyterian Church USA to consider redirecting their investment into responsible fossil fuels producers ... they are producing things we need and use each-and-every day.

Thank you for your consideration.

NOTE: As the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA meets in Portland this month and considers demands for an immediate and total, blanket divestment of the denomination’s investment funds from “fossil fuel producers,” I have to ask ... is blanket divestment the answer? Shouldn’t we, instead, consider reinvestment of those funds into responsible – even moral – fossil fuel producers?

Let me give you some idea of my background - the context in which I am composing these posts. It’s important to the consideration – if any! – that you will give to what follows ...

For the past 32 years, I have lived and worked in and around the city of Midland, in the western region of Texas ... smack-dab in the middle of what they call ‘the oil patch.’ There is some cattle and some cotton in the foundation of this community, but most of Midland today is built upon the energy industry, and the production of oil and natural gas plays a major -even predominant role - in our local economy.

I do not work directly for the energy industry ... though I have been happily married those same 32 years to someone who is. As for me, I first worked in in this part of Texas as a contract archaeologist ... but my vocation has changed more than once with the ups and downs – especially the downs! – in the energy industry over the past three decades. So I have also worked as a television writer/producer, a newspaper reporter/editor, a website/social media manager, and for the past eight years in the public information and media office of a community college.

This has given me a tremendous opportunity to observe the industry ‘up-close and personal,’ as we used to say in the news business. I suggest that I might have more insight than some others into the industry, its people, its technology and practices, and the changes in said technology and practices. I have seen, reported-on and learned from – to borrow a phrase from a movie title – the good, the bad and the ugly of fossil fuel production ... and the beautiful, as well.

Let me qualify that last paragraph, though ... my experience observing fossil fuel producers has been exclusively with oil and natural gas. I have no such current experience with the coal industry, and I am not qualified to comment upon changes that may have taken place in their technology and practices. When it comes to coal, all I have to go on are the 50-year-old memories I have of that industry – actually, the remnants of that industry – in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area of northeastern Pennsylvania ... observations which helped set my course down the environmentalism path as a teenager way-back-when.

Anyway, that is where I come from. Where I am going, in the days ahead, is to develop my pro-fossil fuel thesis, and to suggest options for a position within the Presbyterian Church USA that still promotes protection and restoration of God’s creation, yet encourages responsible – even moral – energy production that includes fossil fuels. Thank you for your time in reading the above. I welcome any comments you wish to make in the space below ... regardless of your stance on fossil fuel production. It is my hope that this will be the start of a discussion among those who ultimately share a common goal, a common destination ... though for now, we may be reaching it by different paths.

No comments: