2024 Interview on Sustainability between Pando, John Cobb, and Mary Elizabeth Moore

“The Temptation of St. Anthony,” Hieronymus Bosch (1450-1516). Fire threatens to rage over the landscape in a scene populated by strange and eerie creatures. Image courtesy of the Rijks Museum.

Living in strange times

article link

by Pando Populus | Jan. 21, 2024

We try to sit down with Pando’s founding Chair John Cobb as often as we can to talk about the big ideas related to creating a more sustainable world. This time we invited Mary Elizabeth Moore to the conversation. Held over Zoom, and edited for clarity and length, this discussion focuses on doing purposeful work in difficult times, and the philosophical assumptions it implies.

John Cobb has been called the most significant philosophical theologian of our time and is the leading authority on the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and chair of Pando’s Board of Directors.

Mary Elizabeth Moore is Professor Emerita of Theology and Education and Dean Emerita of the School of Theology, Boston University. She is vice chair of the Cobb Institute Board of Directors, in Claremont, CA where she lives in retirement.

———————————-

Pando: If I had an artist’s gift, I’d paint our reality today like Hieronymus Bosch painted his five centuries ago, only more bizarre and twisted.

We live in frightening times. How should this affect the work in sustainability that we do? How can it not? At any rate, at what point is it only prudent to give up on change-making and hide under a rock?

I don’t want to sound unduly pessimistic, but who can read the newspaper without asking these questions?

John Cobb: Every year as things get worse, more people say we must act. At this moment, I think our responsibility is to fulfill our calling to do what we feel is right.

For example, last year, I felt called to do something about US-China relations. I believe that there is no possibility of making the changes that need to be made in the human relationship to the planet, physical planet, unless the United States and China work together. It’s about the cooperation of the two major countries.

Mary Elizabeth, your thoughts?

Mary Elizabeth Moore: I appreciate the way John approaches the question through the China-U.S. relations lens and the larger geopolitical situation. For many, however, the demands for survival are so immediate that looking at the large geopolitical picture is challenging and can lead downhill to despair that undercuts any kind of movement toward ecological justice.

We hear the term “ecological justice” a lot, but what do you mean by it?

I’m not only talking about justice for poor communities that are affected by ecological damage. I’m also talking about justice for the trees and the rivers and the rocks. I think to be drawn into that, we need a radical cultural change. My own attention has been focused on cultural change of this kind.

I believe that if we’re going to give our best to reversing and repairing and protecting what’s left, we need to work in several directions at one time and I think what John’s proposing is a very important direction.

Where do you put your own energies with an ecological justice focus in mind?

I have cast my energies into working on smaller projects and cultural change in local communities – taking that route for larger and global impact.

Describing the beginnings of the environmental movement, Vandana Shiva wrote that when small communities around the world started to take note of and discover other small communities working towards similar goals around the globe, the environmental movement really took off.

Local work can seem small potatoes. But the idea of communities of communities linking together can create serious impact.

Yes, and this is why I find the work Pando does to be so extremely hopeful. It may not be changing the world in an instant, but it does spread ideas and projects which are networked together and have the effect of building a new kind of culture. I’m convinced that that is one very important way to go.

Do you think that the local approach to change-making has had much of an effect on how this kind of work is done?

Yes, and we can see this even in the work of the United Nations. Instead of the United Nations taking their own experts around, as they used to do so much of, they are beginning to bring the local experts together to present to one another. And then they work on problems together. And to me, that is an extremely important reversal of culture. Expertise is being drawn from people who are passionate and are working on ecological protection and change and reparation in their own communities. And they’re learning from one another how to do it, and so the work they’re doing is spreading. It’s very effective.

I think that a big part of this approach is that it’s only in local settings that we learn to listen and observe and touch and feel all of creation. So it’s not just learning from diverse human communities what we need to do, but it’s also learning from the trees and the ants and the other animals and the ways they work together, collaborate.

But, if we ignore a more global approach, can’t we get lost in just caring for our own survival? Surely, even at a local level, we need to maintain a global outlook.

I think it’s too easy to separate the local and global – even in drawing from the wisdom of plants and animals.

I know this is a little far out, but take in the fact that ants are the largest species in the world. Collectively, the weight of ants is more than half of the weight of all other animals, including humans, put together. And, they’re spread all over the world.

I use that as an example because to learn from ants is to attend to the global phenomenon of ants, not just the local. Everything, including what’s done locally, is affected by policies that are not only local but global.

My concern is to develop and to learn from the diverse local communities and aspects of creation in order to develop policies that are protective and reparative as much as possible.

And then where the, where things fail at the policy level, and the threats just seem insurmountable, then I think you’re also saying that a local focus at least forms a foundation for resilience – community resilience – to some extent, right?

And it provides a site for mourning. Mourning is a very important part of what needs to happen. If we don’t feel the destruction, we’re not going to be inspired to do anything about it. It’s important.

John, let’s get you back in on this. There was an issue brought up by Alfred North Whitehead at the Apostles club when he was a student at Cambridge in the 19th century. The club was for intellectual discussion, with different topics each week. The topic for one week was, “Shall we beat our heads against brick walls?” and Whitehead answered yes. And then defended it.

Whenever I think of the work any of us are doing on these issues, I think of beating our heads against brick walls. It can feel that way.

But are we really called to beat our heads against brick walls? If so, how do you defend it to everyone who doesn’t want to end up with a very sore head?

John Cobb: Living in history and taking a moral stand inevitably means you’re going to wind up with a sore head one way or another. What that means is that you have to ground a notion of going up against great odds with some sense that in doing so, you’re on the side of what’s right and good and beautiful – and that those values are actually meaningful and real. It’s hard to maintain the courage you need without some sense that the universe is on your side – that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice,” as the Rev. Martin Luther King put it.

I think that the modernization of the university is one of the major causes of our having lost the ability to think about important matters and ground them. The university holds the ideal of value-free education, but in the absence of values, money fills the void – and education becomes just a tool to make more money. Where that’s the case, it becomes divorced from its true mission – which is serving the common good and trying to do something about the problems that loom on the horizon.

You make this critique as a person whose life was in the university, as a professor. This is true for both of you, of course.

When I single out the university for criticism I am really trying to focus on some key issues that might make a difference quickly because I don’t think we have much time,historically speaking. And on a positive note, I think that the universities are more open to being transformed than they have been for a long, long time.

If the university system were to collectively decide that its job is to save the world, it can go beyond what any other institution of civil society has done. If the enormous resources of the university were rightly used, it could make a rather quick difference.

So that if we have five or ten years before we have to say it really is too late on many important fronts, the transformation of the university may be what we should be working on.

Mary Elizabeth, I’m sure you’d love to break in here.

As John knows, my views of the university are different from his. I have the same ideals, but I see much more of those ideals being embodied in universities than he does.

I have been in higher education for 40 years now and in actual universities for 20. I see what universities are doing that matches what John is saying. And not just in the last two or three years, but I’ve seen it for the 20 years that I’ve been in universities, and before that as well. I’ve had very few colleagues who value learning just for the sake of learning or as its own endpoint, but see higher education as a powerful engine for good.

I would love to go a step further and say, what are the metaphysical assumptions that really are necessary for us to make in order to, as Whitehead put it, continue to hit our heads against brick walls in an effort to bring about change?

I am fearful that we’re in a culture in which even talking about those metaphysical assumptions is so out of fashion. But we’re living in a time when, in fact, without making those assumptions and without discussing them explicitly, we’re really handicapped in our ability to respond to the historical situation we’re in.

I’m curious how either one of you would both respond to that.

The modern dominant metaphysics is a major obstacle. Even so, nobody believes it. I haven’t found anybody who really thinks they are robots.

You’re talking about a materialistic view of the universe where the purposes and meanings we experience and the values we treasure aren’t given the status as being really real — but something we add onto reality, like some sort of decoration to an otherwise material world. But if these things aren’t really real, then it’s hard to think of ourselves as being more than an assemblage of nuts and bolts — or zombies or robots, as you put it, at the end of the day.

But unfortunately, that’s what we teach for the most part.

You’re referencing the fact that metaphysics has no place generally speaking in a discussion of physics at the university.

And physics holds the status as defining what’s most real among academic disciplines.

One approach is to confront the matter head-on, as philosophy might do. Or…

If we can talk about the world as one in a crisis that human beings have contributed to making happen, and then focus our attention on what needs to be done, I think we still have hope. And, I am seeing this hope in Pando and beyond.

How so?

Well, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has recognized that, because climate change is so urgent, we should no longer be neutral when discussing it.

This is a very prestigious academic association, of which you’re a member, saying that education should not be value-free when it comes to the climate.

I also was very interested when the announcement was made of the new president of Columbia University. It was said she had just written a book about values. I have no idea what’s in that book. But the simple fact of it said to me, the climate in higher education is changing. Writing a book about values is now a good thing for an academician to do. Even for getting a good job. I was writing on ethics at a time when doing so kept you at the margins.

So, I’m really hopeful that we can say we made a mistake in thinking that reason – which is simply the accumulation of facts and arguments from facts about facts – could be separated from questions of purpose, value, and life.

Education should grow out of human experience, and experience doesn’t separate facts from values but embraces the whole of life.

Mary Elizabeth?

I would add that the ability to have those conversations has been fueled by years, even decades, of action in that direction. And, I think the kinds of projects that Pando does, the kinds of projects that local communities do – these are actions that often are what open people to talking about the issues in a larger form and writing about values and higher education and so forth.

In the ‘90s, Jay Lifton discovered that the people who were least depressed and least ready to give up on peace were those who were active in the peace movement in some form. And some research has taken place over the years since then has reinforced what Lifton discovered. And that is the kind of action that needs to happen in order for people to have avenues to express their passions and their concerns, and also avenues for people to be open to and explore the metaphysical questions.

I love the connection between action and hope. But Mary Elizabeth, how do you ultimately ground your hope? Action is presumably part of that, but what metaphysical grounding keeps you from just, you know, giving up?

Mary Elizabeth: First, I understand hope is a choice, not an attitude. Optimism is an attitude, but hope is a decision to look for the possibilities.

I’m very much influenced by Alfred North Whitehead and the understanding that the world is always in relationship and is always in process. It is always moving so that no moment is the endpoint, and we’re never going to reach an endpoint. But every moment contributes to the potential of the next moments that are coming, and that potential is so important for the salvation of the world.

You cannot guarantee what the future is going to be. But you can contribute to the potential for flourishing, the potential for justice, the potential for the well-being of all creation.

And I think that is our duty as beings, not just as human beings. Animals and plants have their duties that come out of their natural ways of being.

Each of us doing our part to build potential, where we can. It’s a beautiful articulation you’ve offered.

I will add one other thing. The theologians who’ve written on hope have almost always written on that subject out of dire circumstances. Out of having been in life and death circumstances where not only would their lives personally be threatened, but they saw the whole world or the whole culture being threatened. And the urgency that that brought led them to seek hope.

Jurgen Moltmann is an example. But there are so many examples of this. Hope has been a major theme among Latin American liberation theologians. It’s been a major theme among many feminist, womanist, Mujerista, theologians and so forth. Because it’s a necessity in order to seek ways that open possibilities for something better.

John, you’re a philosopher and philosophical theologian, how do you ground the work you do?

John Cobb: I will talk specifically about God.

I think that if reality as a whole has no values, no preferences, and if nothing contributes intentionally to the survival of valuable things or cares about the increase of values and so forth and so on, then I think it is very difficult to find grounds for hope or to ground any of the work we aim to do.

But if we believe that there is that which favors values – and I think there’s all kinds of scientific evidence actually today that the universe favors life – I think that gives some assurance that even if we humans have a very hard time imagining how we can get from where we are to where we need to be, that there is something else working in that direction.

If we can really open ourselves to its guidance, we have no way of knowing what’s possible. So to me, that’s very important.

To the contrary, I think that value-free thinking of the kind that so much of education has tried to encourage, accompanied by the notion that everything that happens is predetermined in a material world, is not a context in which hope can emerge or be sustained for long.

A final question for you both, given all you know about the state of the world and what you’ve said above: if you were the parent of a young child working for the common good in a major metropolitan area, or would you pick up and flee – to some nice, quiet place? Or would you stay put? If the world were going to hell anyway, why not try to carve out a pleasant niche someplace where it’s not quite as bad?

I haven’t given that any thought. I think I’d just stay with the world as it went to hell.

If there are possibilities of helping a city become more self-sufficient, I think that’s very important. And smaller cities probably have a better shot at that, than the bigger ones.

Frankly, even though I talk about surviving a lot…

Planetary survival, civilizational survival, species…

…yes, at this juncture in my life, I personally have no interest in surviving. I’m ready to go.

Mary Elizabeth, how do you respond?

I think it’s a wonderful question – do we head for the hills or do we stay and do the work we feel called to do, with hope? And I think it begs another question, Why? Why would you head for the hills or why would you stay where you are if you’re in a city? Or why would you move to a big city if you’re not already there? I think the why is the bottom line question, and you framed it originally in terms of rearing children.

I think that a family might ask, in what environment can we contribute the most and can we help our children grow in the most thoughtful and full ways to love the Earth and all the peoples and creatures on it? And, I think you can do that in the middle of a city, and you can do it in a rural area, and you can abuse it in either. I think it’s really a matter of calling and preferences, but the real question is, how can we live in this place in a way that contributes to flourishing?

I have friends who, when they retired, moved and a couple who before they retired, moved into a rural area and are developing the capacity to live off the grid. Some have already accomplished that and I completely admire that. It hasn’t been my calling but I think it’s beautiful when people do that. I also see how people live in cities, crowded cities, in ways that are really caring for the earth and other peoples and are really making a difference in the world.

And I think maybe the best example is the indigenous people who choose to live in their tribal communities, or their nation’s communities, because that keeps them in touch with their roots, their traditions, their ways of life that are more conducive to the survival and thriving of the planet.

And I think those are all good decisions and different people will make different ones. If it were not for those people, the indigenous people who make those choices, we would be impoverished as a nation in terms of thinking ecologically, because of what comes out of those communities. So for those people who’ve made that choice, that is just a huge gift to the rest of us.

I would hope that people who make other choices are making a similar kind of gift out of their own choices, because cities can be extraordinarily humane. And they can also be extraordinarily destructive. They’re usually a mix of everything. But you can make a good life for the planet and the beings on it in the middle of a very busy city, as well as in the countryside.

It was truly a pleasure. Thank you both.

See further - Pando Sustainability Awards - link here

More articles by Pando - link here

Ecological Processualism - Healing the Earth and One Another

amazon link

The first edition of this book fostered the emergence of the "Spiritual Ecology Movement," which recognizes the need for a spiritual response to our present ecological crisis. It drew an overwhelmingly positive response from readers, many of whom are asking the simple question, "What can I do?" This second expanded edition offers new chapters, including two from younger authors who are putting the principles of spiritual ecology into action, working with their hands as well as their hearts. It also includes a new preface and revised chapter by Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, that reference two major recent events: the publication of Pope Francis's encyclical, "On Care for Our Common Home," which brought into the mainstream the idea that "the ecological crisis is essentially a spiritual problem"; and the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference, which saw representatives from nearly 200 countries come together to address global warming, including faith leaders from many traditions. Bringing together voices from Buddhism, Sufism, Christianity, and Native American traditions, as well as from physics, deep psychology, and other environmental disciplines, this book calls on us to reassess our underlying attitudes and beliefs about the Earth and wake up to our spiritual as well as physical responsibilities toward the planet.

 * * * * * *

Ecological Processualism -

Healing the Earth and One Another

by R.E. Slater

The Means

Yesterday, as I was working through a few subject matters when extending radical process Christianity to cover all religious and non-religious viewpoints, I chanced upon a question which I thought might be relevant in practical-sort-of-way. The question of "What to do in a world torn by ecological disruption and social inequity."

I believe these two great needs of our time can be mended together as one if we, as virtualized societies, are committed to rebuilding transformative societes towards the idea of "ecological societies and civilizations." To do so we will need a common referent, language, and construct. Process philosophy and theology are exactly that... the first provides a pervasive philosophical foundation and, the second, an extensive theology for all religious and non-religiously oriented people.

The radicalization of process theology speaks expansively to the significantly transformative societal responses needed for performative expression and creativity. It can cover the many diverse strands of belief and outlook quite nimbly when taken within a radicalized socio-politico and religious context (which was the point of my previous six-part series on Radical theology; Radical theology is simply the internal and external acts of disengaging from unhealthy, and harming, beliefs and societal behaviours).

After many years of searching for a philosophic hermeneutic which might help translate the world's many enculturated referents into healing acts of grace and forgiveness I believe a processually-based societal outlook is large enough to include everybody from everywhere in the greatest global participation of our time... if not of all time... that of healing the earth and one another.

The Why

As a process Christian I can say that a process-based Christianity teaches individual-and-societal health-and-healing as a centering focus and missional-drive of generative value. This is also the defining act of the Christian-event marked by God's atoning redemption as Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, in the first century.

As a process philosophy, Whiteheadian processual thought encapsulates this very Hebraic-Christian principle of atoning/redeeming acts of processual reclamation, rebirth, and renewal. It is why process philosophy and theology seem to reflect the sentiment of "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" Once conceived, processual thought reflects creational evolution as ideally as the Christian faith that of regenerative life through death (sic, entropic worlds birthing worlds of negentrophy).

It is only upon the ruins of destruction can one rebuild significantly, and transformatively, renewing foundations. Without atoning ruins death is death. But with redeeming ruins death can become life. - re slater

So rather than eclipsing my earlier discourse yesterday by leaving it within the ranks of Radical (Process) Theology (e.g., a good theology is always radical, and radically transformative, in rejuvenating and regenerative ways) I have plucked it out from yesterday's discussion with ChatGPT to help underline the necessary and needful discussion for ecological processualism.

The Response

Please review then, the discussion below to determine if processual environmentalism might be large enough, and wide enough, in engaging, and rupturing-forth, personal and societal embrace of necessary and needful change. I believe it's common language for birthing socio-ecological renewal is exactly what the world needs in reclaiming healthier societies - both environmentally and with one another.

It also gets to the very idea that God is a kinder God than we have proposed in our religions (sic, Christianity, for one). That God is a God of Love first-and-foremost and that Christianity must become a Theology of Love and not a theology of divine wrath and judgment. 

Religious people when driven by fear and unloving actions forget that a loving Redeemer/Creator is working with them in deeply restorative acts of healing. We read of this time-and-again through the Old and New Testaments of the bible: "How people and localities when repenting and changing their hearts - and subsequently, their behaviours - can find healing grace and forgiveness as a spiritually performative result".

Even so, processual philosophy and theology beat with this same heartbeat of "self-serving sacrifice" as an expression of loving care and forgiveness to one another and to nature.

R.E. Slater

May 29, 2023

Ref: Radical Christian Process Theology, Part 6 - 

Radical Approaches, Propositions & Applications

Be the Change Around You

RES

What propositions might be expected when proposing a metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society?

ChatGPT

Proposing a metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society would involve considering various propositions that blend elements of metamodernism, process philosophy, and ecological thinking. Here are some propositions that could be expected in such a proposal:

1. Embracing Complexity and Pluralism: A metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society recognizes and embraces the complexity and plurality of ecological and societal systems. It acknowledges that ecological and social challenges require nuanced and multifaceted solutions that consider diverse perspectives, values, and knowledge systems.
2. Dynamic Balance and Resilience: Building upon process philosophy, the proposal would emphasize the importance of dynamic balance and resilience in ecological and societal systems. It recognizes that both natural and social systems are interconnected and constantly changing, requiring adaptive approaches that foster resilience and the ability to respond to environmental and societal disruptions.
3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society promotes interdisciplinary collaboration and integration of knowledge across various fields, including environmental science, social sciences, philosophy, economics, and governance. It recognizes that addressing complex ecological issues necessitates a holistic and collaborative approach that draws upon diverse expertise and perspectives.
4. Ethical Responsibility and Stewardship: The proposal would emphasize ethical responsibility and stewardship towards the environment and future generations. It recognizes that human actions have consequences for ecological systems and emphasizes the need to consider long-term sustainability, intergenerational justice, and the well-being of all beings within the ecological community.
5. Participatory Democracy and Local Empowerment: A process-based ecological society would prioritize participatory democracy and local empowerment. It advocates for inclusive decision-making processes that involve diverse stakeholders, including local communities, indigenous peoples, and marginalized groups, in shaping ecological policies and practices. It values grassroots initiatives and bottom-up approaches that empower individuals and communities to actively contribute to ecological governance and decision-making.
6. Regenerative and Circular Economy: The proposal would advocate for a shift towards a regenerative and circular economy that minimizes waste, promotes resource efficiency, and seeks to restore and regenerate ecological systems. It emphasizes the importance of reducing reliance on non-renewable resources, transitioning towards renewable energy sources, and adopting sustainable production and consumption patterns.
7. Environmental Justice and Equity: A metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society places a strong emphasis on environmental justice and equity. It acknowledges that environmental issues disproportionately affect marginalized communities and seeks to address environmental inequalities and social injustices. The proposal would strive to ensure equitable access to clean air, water, and natural resources, and work towards the inclusion of diverse voices in decision-making processes.
8. Education and Cultural Transformation: Recognizing the need for cultural transformation, the proposal would highlight the importance of education and awareness-building to foster ecological literacy, sustainability, and empathy towards the natural world. It would promote transformative education that encourages critical thinking, ecological consciousness, and a sense of interconnectedness with the environment.

These propositions serve as starting points for a metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society. They reflect the integration of metamodernist values, process philosophy's emphasis on dynamism and interconnectedness, and ecological thinking's focus on sustainability and the well-being of the environment and society. The specific formulation and emphasis of these propositions would depend on the particular context and priorities of the proposal.

RES

Might the same be expected of a Process-based Radical Christianity to the church at large?

ChatGPT

A Process-based Radical Christianity, inspired by process philosophy and radical approaches to Christianity, would likely share some common propositions with a metamodern approach to a process-based ecological society. Here are some propositions that might be expected in such a proposal for the church at large:

1. Openness to Pluralism and Dialogue: A Process-based Radical Christianity would embrace openness to pluralism and engage in dialogue with diverse perspectives, both within and outside of the Christian tradition. It recognizes that different interpretations and understandings of Christianity can coexist and contribute to a richer understanding of faith.
2. Dynamic Faith and Process Theology: The proposal would draw upon process theology to articulate a dynamic and evolving understanding of faith. It would emphasize that God is seen as actively engaged in the ongoing process of creation, and that human understanding of God and religious truths is subject to growth and development.
3. Social Justice and Liberation: A Process-based Radical Christianity would prioritize social justice and liberation, inspired by the radical teachings and actions of Jesus. It would advocate for addressing systemic inequalities, combating oppression, and promoting the dignity and well-being of all individuals, particularly marginalized and vulnerable populations.
4. Inclusive and Affirming Community: The proposal would promote inclusivity and affirming attitudes towards diverse individuals and communities, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or other identities. It would challenge exclusionary practices and advocate for the full participation and acceptance of all members within the Christian community.
5. Ecological Stewardship: Building on the ecological concerns of process philosophy, a Process-based Radical Christianity would emphasize ecological stewardship and care for the Earth. It would recognize the interconnectedness of all creation and the responsibility to protect and restore the environment as a sacred duty.
6. Participatory and Empowering Church Structures: The proposal would advocate for participatory and empowering structures within the church. It would encourage shared decision-making, inclusivity, and active engagement of all members in shaping the direction and practices of the community. It would prioritize the voices and agency of marginalized groups and seek to dismantle hierarchies and power imbalances.
7. Transformative Spirituality: A Process-based Radical Christianity would emphasize transformative spirituality that engages with the personal and collective transformation of individuals and society. It would encourage practices such as contemplation, social action, and ethical living that foster growth, compassion, and a deep sense of interconnectedness with all of creation.
8. Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation: The proposal would encourage interfaith dialogue and cooperation, recognizing the value of learning from and engaging with other religious traditions. It would seek common ground, foster mutual understanding, and work towards shared goals of justice, peace, and the well-being of humanity.

These propositions reflect a process-oriented and radical approach to Christianity that incorporates elements of openness, social justice, inclusivity, ecological stewardship, transformative spirituality, and interfaith engagement. They seek to reimagine and revitalize the church, aligning it with contemporary challenges and the evolving understanding of faith and the world. The specific articulation and emphasis of these propositions would depend on the particular context and aspirations of a Process-based Radical Christianity within the church.

RES

Thank you. End file. Please save.

ChatGPT

You're welcome! I'm glad I could assist you. Please note that as an AI language model, I don't have the capability to save files directly. However, you can easily save the conversation by copying and pasting it into a document or text file on your device. If you have any more questions in the future, feel free to ask. Have a great day!

https://developerexperience.io/articles/vision

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1157

A Compilation: The Mindfulness of Nature

the Mindfulness of Nature

The historical discussion concerning the relationship of mind and nature has often centered around the well-worn battle between reductive materialists and mind-body dualists. Typically the scientific consensus was set against philosophical arguments regarding science’s epistemic limits. These debates often made little progress, and one sometimes has the sense that the participants are talking past each other.

Today, however, a new aspect of the topic is emerging. Across multiple scientific disciplines, there is a growing recognition of nature’s mindfulness - that is, of the prevalence of diverse kinds of minds within nature - as well a philosophical renaissance of more robust and expansive naturalisms.

During this gathering, we intend to explore this generative intersection and the way it could help reconfigure our vision of mind and nature.

• How widespread is mind or mentality in the natural world?

• Is there a diversity of kinds of mind, or kinds of mentality?

• Which aspects of the mental are open to scientific inquiry?

• Does the prevalence of minds in the natural world have any philosophical implications?

Seminar Facilitators

Sarah Lane Ritchie & Tripp Fuller, from the University of Edinburgh, will be co-hosting this research gathering. It is part of a three-year project titled God & the Book of Nature supported by the John Tempelton Foundation.

So often scholars get stuck in disciplinary silos, over-determined by the inherited prejudices and unaware of potentially vibrant conversation partners in other disciplines. Our goal is to bring together multiple disciplines for a scientifically-rigorous, skeptically-persistent, experientially-informed, and spiritually-humble conversation.

Seminar Contributors

[video lengths varies between 22 minutes and more]]

Philip Clayton

Claremont School of Theology

Philip Clayton & the Mindfulness of Nature

Christof Koch

Allen Institute

Christof Koch & the Mindfulness of Nature

Tim Ingold

University of Aberdeen

Tim Ingold & the Mindfulness of Nature

Joanna Leidenhag

University of St. Andrews

Joanna Leidenhag & the Mindfulness of Nature

Jonathan Delafield-Butt

University of Strathclyde

Jonathan Delafield-Butt & the Mindfulness of Nature

Philip Goff

Durham University

Philip Goff & the Mindfulness of Nature

Thomas Jay Oord

Center for Open and Relational Theology

Thomas jay Oord & the Mindfulness of Nature

Godehard Brüntrup SJ

University of Berlin

Godehard Bruntrup & the Mindfulness of Nature

* * * * * * *

The Mindfulness of Nature

with Tripp Fuller & Philip Clayton

Philip Clayton returns to the podcast! This conversation was inspired by an online academic conference I put together as part of the God & the Book of Nature project at the University of Edinburgh titled the Mindfulness of Nature. You can find videos of all the papers from the gathering here.

As a scholar, Philip Clayton (Ingraham Professor, Claremont School of Theology) works at the intersection points of science, philosophy, and theology. As an activist (president of EcoCiv.org, President of IPDC), he works to convene, facilitate, and catalyze multi-sectoral initiatives toward ecological civilization.

In the conversation, we discuss...

how the conversation around mind and consciousness is changingthe dramatically changing character of science engaged theologycan confessional theologians fully engage the sciences?how panpsychism became a live option in philosophy and scienceTripp gets uncomfortable when Phil makes him pick between his position and John Cobb'sis there mental causal power?Tripp ends up venting about philosophical theologians who complain without understanding Whiteheadthe correct answer is pneumaterialismare there guardrails for theological thinking?how does a process theologian end their emails? "keep it zesty"

---

Philip Clayton @ the Mindfulness of Nature - YouTube

www.youtube.com › watch

22:05

Philip Clayton @ the Mindfulness of Nature

---

1:24:16
Philip Clayton: on the Mindfulness of Nature - Tripp Fuller
trippfuller.com › features

---

23:51

Joanna Leidenhag @ the Mindfulness of Nature, Aug 15, 2022

Sustainable Energy Using Hydrogen

Blending public and private capital can make hydrogen projects bankable
and commercially viable. | Superestrella, Shutterstock

Green Hydrogen:

A key investment for the energy transition

article link

by Michael Kobina Kane & Stephanie Gil

June 23, 2022

Produced by using renewably generated electricity that splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, green hydrogen holds significant promise to help meet global energy demand while contributing to climate action goals.

The demand for hydrogen reached an estimated 87 million metric tons (MT) in 2020, and is expected to grow to 500–680 million MT by 2050. From 2020 to 2021, the hydrogen production market was valued at $130 billion and is estimated to grow up to 9.2% per year through 2030. But there’s a catch: over 95% of current hydrogen production is fossil-fuel based, very little of it is “green”. Today, 6% of global natural gas and 2% of global coal go into hydrogen production.

Nevertheless, green hydrogen production technologies are seeing a renewed wave of interest. This is because the possible uses for hydrogen are expanding across multiple sectors including power generation, manufacturing processes in industries such as steelmaking and cement production, fuel cells for electric vehicles, heavy transport such as shipping, green ammonia production for fertilizers, cleaning products, refrigeration, and electricity grid stabilization.

Moreover, falling renewable energy prices—coupled with the dwindling cost of electrolyzers and increased efficiency due to technology improvements—have increased the commercial viability of green hydrogen production. The figure below shows the forecast of the global range of levelized cost of hydrogen production for large projects through 2050.

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, if these costs continue to fall, green hydrogen could be produced for $0.70 – $1.60 per kg in most parts of the world by 2050, a price competitive with natural gas. NEL, the world’s largest producer and manufacturer of electrolyzers, believes that green hydrogen production cost parity (or even superiority) with fossil fuels could be achieved as early as 2025.

How do we structure a bankable green hydrogen project?

Given this significant growth in demand, the scale of input energy required (22,000 TWh of green electricity to produce 500 million tons of green hydrogen per year), and the parallels of the hydrogen value chain to that of the fossil fuel value chain (with upstream, midstream, and downstream elements), the green hydrogen industry should attract investments.

Yet, to date, only a few green hydrogen projects have been successfully brought to market. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), most green hydrogen projects under construction and in operation are at the pre-commercial phase with limited electrolyzer capacity—typically less than 50 MW. While some proposed plants are of 100 MW capacity or more, they remain small compared to fossil fuel alternatives. In addition, green hydrogen projects present other peculiarities and risks that challenge traditional project finance: nescience of the technology; segmentation of energy input; production and transformation; storage; and transportation to end-users.

At the recent Global Infrastructure Facility (GIF) Advisory Council Meeting, panelists agreed that blending public and private capital can make hydrogen projects bankable and commercially viable, but certain factors need to be considered. 

One way to position these projects for success is to locate renewable energy production and hydrogen production facilities together so they can be better integrated. This was the approach in Puertollano, Spain, home to both a 100 MW solar farm and Europe’s largest green hydrogen facility for industrial use.

Governments also need to create policy and regulatory frameworks that incentivize investments. Building capacity and providing technical assistance for governments, especially in emerging markets and developing economies, is key to developing these regulations and ensuring their enforcement and compliance. Further, there is need for a globally agreed definition of green hydrogen and methods to guarantee and certify the origin of the fuel. Also critical, especially in light of the Just Transition agenda, is the need to help workers develop the skills they need for this emerging industry.

How is the World Bank Group helping?

The World Bank Group is working with developing countries to accelerate green hydrogen projects from pilot stage to industrial scale.  To achieve this, we provide technical assistance to foster enabling policy, regulatory, and fiscal frameworks; build innovative financing that catalyzes concessional and climate finance resources; integrate risk mitigation and credit enhancement instruments to mobilize private capital; and transfer knowledge to develop local green jobs to support a just transition.

One example of our work is the World’s Bank program in the Latin America and Caribbean region, which has the cleanest energy mix globally and abundant, low-cost renewable energy potential. In countries such as Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, and Brazil, the World Bank Group is taking multiple actions to establish green hydrogen as a fuel and to promote the use of green hydrogen as energy storage.  Specifically, we are working to design green hydrogen financing facilities, develop mechanisms to certify green hydrogen along the value chain, and establish carbon pricing through the Partnership for Market Readiness. Our program in the region is fully aligned with the countries’ visions to leverage green hydrogen as means to decarbonize their economies and facilitate a just energy transition. Ultimately, making these changes would increase competitiveness, open new markets, create local green jobs, and attract even more private sector investment—contributing to green, resilient, and inclusive growth.

Moving forward

The few pioneering projects that have reached successful commercial and financial close and have transitioned to operation have tested the financing parameters and established bankable project structures and documentation packages that can be referenced by commercial-scale projects under preparation across the globe. The GIF is uniquely positioned to provide technical assistance and transaction advisory services to support governments in EMDEs as they look to develop green hydrogen projects as part of their energy transition objectives.

Related Posts

• Green Hydrogen: A solution for Chile's climate emergency and economic recovery

• Mind the gap: Time to rethink infrastructure finance

• Blended finance can catalyze renewable energy investments in low-income countries

• Sloughing off Earth Day despair with resources to make climate-smart infrastructure a reality

• GIF: making climate-smart infrastructure bankable

* * * * * * * *

At MITEI’s 2022 Spring Symposium, the “Options for producing low-carbon hydrogen at scale” panel laid out existing and planned efforts to produce hydrogen at scale to help achieve a decarbonized energy system. | Credits:Photo: Kelley Travers

Making hydrogen power a reality

article link

by Calvin Hennick | MIT Energy Initiative

June 27, 2022

Hydrogen fuel has long been seen as a potentially key component of a carbon-neutral future. At the 2022 MIT Energy Initiative Spring Symposium, industry experts describe efforts to produce it at scale.

For decades, government and industry have looked to hydrogen as a potentially game-changing tool in the quest for clean energy. As far back as the early days of the Clinton administration, energy sector observers and public policy experts have extolled the virtues of hydrogen — to the point that some people have joked that hydrogen is the energy of the future, “and always will be.”

Even as wind and solar power have become commonplace in recent years, hydrogen has been held back by high costs and other challenges. But the fuel may finally be poised to have its moment. At the MIT Energy Initiative Spring Symposium — entitled “Hydrogen’s role in a decarbonized energy system” — experts discussed hydrogen production routes, hydrogen consumption markets, the path to a robust hydrogen infrastructure, and policy changes needed to achieve a “hydrogen future.”

During one panel, “Options for producing low-carbon hydrogen at scale,” four experts laid out existing and planned efforts to leverage hydrogen for decarbonization.

“The race is on”

Huyen N. Dinh, a senior scientist and group manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), is the director of HydroGEN, a consortium of several U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories that accelerates research and development of innovative and advanced water splitting materials and technologies for clean, sustainable, and low-cost hydrogen production.

For the past 14 years, Dinh has worked on fuel cells and hydrogen production for NREL. “We think that the 2020s is the decade of hydrogen,” she said. Dinh believes that the energy carrier is poised to come into its own over the next few years, pointing to several domestic and international activities surrounding the fuel and citing a Hydrogen Council report that projected the future impacts of hydrogen — including 30 million jobs and $2.5 trillion in global revenue by 2050.

“Now is the time for hydrogen, and the global race is on,” she said.

Dinh also explained the parameters of the Hydrogen Shot — the first of the DOE’s “Energy Earthshots” aimed at accelerating breakthroughs for affordable and reliable clean energy solutions. Hydrogen fuel currently costs around $5 per kilogram to produce, and the Hydrogen Shot’s stated goal is to bring that down by 80 percent to $1 per kilogram within a decade.

The Hydrogen Shot will be facilitated by $9.5 billion in funding for at least four clean hydrogen hubs located in different parts of the United States, as well as extensive research and development, manufacturing, and recycling from last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law. Still, Dinh noted that it took more than 40 years for solar and wind power to become cost competitive, and now industry, government, national lab, and academic leaders are hoping to achieve similar reductions in hydrogen fuel costs over a much shorter time frame. In the near term, she said, stakeholders will need to improve the efficiency, durability, and affordability of hydrogen production through electrolysis (using electricity to split water) using today’s renewable and nuclear power sources. Over the long term, the focus may shift to splitting water more directly through heat or solar energy, she said.

“The time frame is short, the competition is intense, and a coordinated effort is critical for domestic competitiveness,” Dinh said.

Hydrogen across continents

Wambui Mutoru, principal engineer for international commercial development, exploration, and production international at the Norwegian global energy company Equinor, said that hydrogen is an important component in the company’s ambitions to be carbon-neutral by 2050. The company, in collaboration with partners, has several hydrogen projects in the works, and Mutoru laid out the company’s Hydrogen to Humber project in Northern England. Currently, the Humber region emits more carbon dioxide than any other industrial cluster in the United Kingdom — 50 percent more, in fact, than the next-largest carbon emitter.

“The ambition here is for us to deploy the world’s first at-scale hydrogen value chain to decarbonize the Humber industrial cluster,” Mutoru said.

The project consists of three components: a clean hydrogen production facility, an onshore hydrogen and carbon dioxide transmission network, and offshore carbon dioxide transportation and storage operations. Mutoru highlighted the importance of carbon capture and storage in hydrogen production. Equinor, she said, has captured and sequestered carbon offshore for more than 25 years, storing more than 25 million tons of carbon dioxide during that time.

Mutoru also touched on Equinor’s efforts to build a decarbonized energy hub in the Appalachian region of the United States, covering territory in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. By 2040, she said, the company's ambition is to produce about 1.5 million tons of clean hydrogen per year in the region — roughly equivalent to 6.8 gigawatts of electricity — while also storing 30 million tons of carbon dioxide.

Mutoru acknowledged that the biggest challenge facing potential hydrogen producers is the current lack of viable business models. “Resolving that challenge requires cross-industry collaboration, and supportive policy frameworks so that the market for hydrogen can be built and sustained over the long term,” she said.

Confronting barriers

Gretchen Baier, executive external strategy and communications leader for Dow, noted that the company already produces hydrogen in multiple ways. For one, Dow operates the world’s largest ethane cracker, in Texas. An ethane cracker heats ethane to break apart molecular bonds to form ethylene, with hydrogen one of the byproducts of the process. Also, Baier showed a slide of the 1891 patent for the electrolysis of brine water, which also produces hydrogen. The company still engages in this practice, but Dow does not have an effective way of utilizing the resulting hydrogen for their own fuel.

“Just take a moment to think about that,” Baier said. “We’ve been talking about hydrogen production and the cost of it, and this is basically free hydrogen. And it’s still too much of a barrier to somewhat recycle that and use it for ourselves. The environment is clearly changing, and we do have plans for that, but I think that kind of sets some of the challenges that face industry here.”

However, Baier said, hydrogen is expected to play a significant role in Dow’s future as the company attempts to decarbonize by 2050. The company, she said, plans to optimize hydrogen allocation and production, retrofit turbines for hydrogen fueling, and purchase clean hydrogen. By 2040, Dow expects more than 60 percent of its sites to be hydrogen-ready.

Baier noted that hydrogen fuel is not a “panacea,” but rather one among many potential contributors as industry attempts to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions in the coming decades. “Hydrogen has an important role, but it’s not the only answer,” she said.

“This is real”

Colleen Wright is vice president of corporate strategy for Constellation, which recently separated from Exelon Corporation. (Exelon now owns the former company’s regulated utilities, such as Commonwealth Edison and Baltimore Gas and Electric, while Constellation owns the competitive generation and supply portions of the business.) Wright stressed the advantages of nuclear power in hydrogen production, which she said include superior economics, low barriers to implementation, and scalability.

“A quarter of emissions in the world are currently from hard-to-decarbonize sectors — the industrial sector, steel making, heavy-duty transportation, aviation,” she said. “These are really challenging decarbonization sectors, and as we continue to expand and electrify, we’re going to need more supply. We’re also going to need to produce clean hydrogen using emissions-free power.”

“The scale of nuclear power plants is uniquely suited to be able to scale hydrogen production,” Wright added. She mentioned Constellation’s Nine Mile Point site in the State of New York, which received a DOE grant for a pilot program that will see a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer installed at the site.

“We’re very excited to see hydrogen go from a [research and development] conversation to a commercial conversation,” she said. “We’ve been calling it a little bit of a ‘middle-school dance.’ Everybody is standing around the circle, waiting to see who’s willing to put something at stake. But this is real. We’re not dancing around the edges. There are a lot of people who are big players, who are willing to put skin in the game today.”

* * * * * * * *

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY [PROJECTS]

CNBC article link

The race to make green hydrogen competitive is on. And

Europe is building industrial-scale electrolyzers to help

by Anmar Frangoul

June 24, 2022

• Hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in a wide range of industries.

• Siemens Energy and Air Liquide have announced plans to focus on the production of “industrial scale renewable hydrogen electrolyzers in Europe.”

• A growing number of multinational firms are attempting to lay down a marker in the green hydrogen sector.

Siemens Energy and Air Liquide have announced plans to set up a joint venture focused on the production of “industrial scale renewable hydrogen electrolyzers in Europe.”

The move, announced on Thursday, represents the latest attempt to find a way to drive “renewable” or “green” hydrogen production costs down and make the sector competitive.

The establishment of the joint venture — Siemens Energy will have a 74.9% stake, while Air Liquide will hold 25.1% — is subject to approval from authorities.

If all goes to plan, its headquarters will be in Berlin, with a facility producing electrolysis modules, or stacks, also based there.

Plans for electrolyzer production in the German capital had been previously announced. Manufacturing is set to begin in 2023, with a yearly production capacity of 3 gigawatts reached in 2025.

The European Union’s executive arm, the European Commission, has previously said it wants 40 GW of renewable hydrogen electrolyzers to be installed in the EU in 2030.

In Feb. 2021, Siemens Energy and Air Liquide announced plans related to the development of “a large scale electrolyzer partnership.”

Siemens Energy shares, year-to-date

Described by the International Energy Agency as a “versatile energy carrier,” hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in a wide range of industries.

It can be produced in a number of ways. One method includes using electrolysis, with an electric current splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen.

If the electricity used in this process comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar then some call it “green” or “renewable” hydrogen. Today, the vast majority of hydrogen generation is based on fossil fuels.

In Oct. 2021, Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch spoke of the challenges facing the green hydrogen sector. On Thursday, he stressed the importance of scale and collaboration going forward.

“To make green hydrogen competitive, we need serially produced, low-cost, scalable electrolyzers,” Bruch said in a statement. “We also need strong partnerships,” Bruch added.

Air Liquide CEO François Jackow described the creation of the joint venture as “major step towards the emergence of a leading European renewable and low-carbon hydrogen ecosystem.”

Siemens Energy and Air Liquide’s plan for a joint venture represents the latest attempt by multinational firms to lay down a marker in the green hydrogen sector.

Just last week, oil and gas supermajor BP said it had agreed to take a 40.5% equity stake in the Asian Renewable Energy Hub, a vast project planned for Australia.

In a statement, BP said it would become the operator of the development, adding that it had “the potential to be one of the largest renewables and green hydrogen hubs in the world.”

In Dec. 2021, Iberdrola and H2 Green Steel said they would partner and develop a 2.3 billion euro (around $2.42 billion) project centered around a green hydrogen facility with an electrolysis capacity of 1 gigawatt.