August 2, 2010 by cpiatt.

Here’s a new nonprofit I’m working that endeavors to place AEDs in every public school and other public building nationwide, and also to provide CPR training to help save lives.

http://www.refresheverything.com/theviafoundation

Please take a minute to register your vote and to pass this along to your list of friends. Also, please consider posting this to your facebook page, blog, etc to help spread the word.

Thanks!
Christian

Posted in environment, parenting, current events, education, economics, youth, technology, culture, young adult, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

July 29, 2010 by cpiatt.

Very pleased to find a strong review in Publisher’s weekly for our new book, SPLIT TICKET, coming out next month. Publisher’s Weekly is one of the – if not the – most influential trades in the publishing biz. So a positive nod from them can go a long way.

To see the review on the PW site itself, click on this link.

To order SPLIT TICKET, click here.

Split Ticket: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics
Edited by Amy Gopp, Christian Piatt, Brandon Gilvin, Chalice (Ingram, dist.), $16.99 paper (224p) ISBN 978-0-8272-3474-1

At a time when partisan politics involves backbiting and cynicism, here is a collection of essays about politics aimed at unity and hope. In the spirit of a friendly roundtable, the essay writers, mostly 20- and 30-something pastors, each discuss the importance of Christians’ involvement in political activism. The writers represent areas from Los Angeles to Bosnia and take up a variety of causes both systemic and personal, including genocide and affordable housing. Their diversity proves that Christians “are not a monolith” and must wade through what are characterized as competing truths in discerning whether to advocate. Some urge Christians to fight the power of empire, citing the way Jesus challenged the status quo to effect change. Others retreat from activism, citing Jesus’s pacifism. Yet the authors all agree that Christians should work against injustice in some way and should employ peaceful debate to work toward unity. Using their own tales of injustice in a post-9/11 world, they force Christians to wake up and take a stand–even if they themselves cannot agree on exactly what that should be. (Aug.)

Posted in proposition 8, environment, current events, theology, WTF, books, economics, politics, faith, Blogroll, church, culture, young adult, church transformation, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

March 31, 2010 by cpiatt.

My wife, Amy and I were watching TV the other night, and a series of commercials came on that told me a lot about who the sponsors of the show thought I was. First, there was a Pepsi ad for this program they have where they give “grants” to people with good, community-changing ideas. Second was a Sun Chips commercial touting their new compostable packaging.

I remarked to Amy about how prevalent this kind of social marketing had become, and did so with no small amount of disdain in my voice, I expect, based on the way she looked at me.

Basically, it’s popular these days for companies to tout their social responsibility to help persuade you to buy their product. From Sun Chips (owned by junk food giant Frito Lay) to Pepsi, and even Coke with their “every time you drink our sugary, caffeine-laced soda, you’re participating in worldwide recycling” promotion, everyone wants to get in on the action. Of course, food and beverage manufacturers aren’t the only one’s getting in on the action. Car manufacturers, clothing designers and all manner of retail chains try hard to give you wamr fuzzies about their products.

On the surface, I know it seems cynical to grumble about companies trying to be socially responsible, even if it only is to better their bottom line. After all, if the result is the same, who cares what their motivation really is, right? But the concern I have hearkens back to my time-tested theory about capitalism at the consumer-level, which is that companies try hard to make us feel good about buying their stuff, and we agree not to ask too many questions, because we’d rather feel good (even if falsely or superficially) about getting what we want rather than doing the hard work of digging deeper for truth and – God forbid – maybe having to sacrifice some wants for our ethics.

First, we should never take a company at their word that what they’re doing is good for us or the planet. As an example, here’s a recent mention about Sun Chips’ installation of a ten-acre field of solar panels to help operate one of their factories, for which they won an “Effie.” This award, it turns out, is not an environmental award, but rather an “effectiveness in marketing” recognition. This from Effie’s website:

On Earth Day 2008, Sun Chips’ factory in Modesto, Calif., opened a 10-acre solar grid so that Sun Chips would be made with solar energy. However, the brand’s users were not hard-core green consumers, and they didn’t care to hear about the details. They just wanted to know they were doing something a little better.

I’m not saying this move to solar is a bad thing, but there are a few questions I’m left wondering about (though evidently, the marketing folks are clear that the general population doesn’t really care):

What percentage of the factory’s total consumption is generated by solar?
Was this part of a government mandate for communities/companies to get certain percentages of their energy from renewable sources, or was it voluntary?
Does the company have any standards for their suppliers and the way they grow, harvest and transport their products?

In short, the idea is to find out if this company seriously is committed to the values they’re promoting, or if it’s simply a photo-op. Before we give ourselves pats on the back for being responsible consumers, we should try to find out.

Second, and perhaps more important, I have concerns that we allow companies who engage in this kind of social marketing to assuage our guilt for our way of life, allowing us to feel like we’ve done our good deed simply buy buying a soft drink or eating chips. Yes, guiding our dollars to more responsible outlets is an important thing to consider, but this doesn’t let us off the hook as human beings, responsible for the care of ourselves, our fellow human beings and the planet. It’s not unlike how some folks figure they don’t have to work hard at making the world a better place all week long, just because they go to church on Sunday.

If the companies we support truly are walking the talk, and if we can verify this, more power to them, and more power to us to support their efforts with our money. And if guiding our purchases in such a way is simply a reflection of a greater effort in all parts of our lives to do right by ourselves and our world, that’s great.

But let’s not fool ourselves; just because we drink Fat Tire instead of Miller Lite or buy our gifts from 10,000 Villages doesn’t mean we don’t have a hell of a lot of work left to do.

Posted in current events, theology, environment, economics, culture, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

March 5, 2010 by cpiatt.

NewSpin
By Christian Piatt

(Originally printed in PULP)

Love or hate it, we have a new cement plant in Pueblo. Yes, it will bring jobs, and yes, it will add pollution to our local environment. Spin it however you want, but no one can argue in good conscience that cement manufacturing has a positive – or even neutral – impact on the planet.

What we’re left with, then, is the challenge of at least mitigating those negative effects on our community. Already, we see growing numbers of respiratory-related problems in Pueblo. So what to do?

Some local media have celebrated the proposal to burn used tires for fuel in the plant, indicating that this is an excellent example of “real recycling” for our state to celebrate. Apparently, the other recycling efforts currently underway in Southern Colorado don’t qualify as “real.”

Granted, we have millions of tires that have to be disposed of every year, one way or another, and burning them for fuel does decrease the need for fossil fuels. But to tout tire burning as an alternative energy source is, at best, disingenuous.

As the Montana Environmental Information Center points out, “Tires contain chlorine. When chlorine is burned, it can form dioxin. DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) admits that the dioxin emissions pose the greatest risk to health and the environment from tire burning.”

But dioxin is only one concern. The Energy Justice Network lists lots of other dangerous byproducts on tire burning:

“The fumes emitted are packed with the many toxic chemicals that tires contain (including volatile organic compounds such as benzene, metals such as lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo(a)pyrene, and synthetic rubber components such as butadiene and styrene). Additionally, the chlorine content in tires leads to the creation of dioxins and furans (which are extremely toxic chemicals) when tires are burned.”

One argument that proponents of this energy strategy make is that, although these compounds created in the fires are highly toxic, the systems used to burn the tires can clean such chemicals from the gases emitted into the atmosphere.

They’re right that such systems exist. The problem is that cement plants that burn tires aren’t required to have them.
Said environmental researcher Dr. Neil Carman: “Cement kilns are not designed or required to have major fail-safe combustion devices such as large afterburners that all state-of-the-art incinerators must have by federal law today…”

Research for this piece yielded no federal or state standards to which polluters are held to determine if their tire-burnings are in compliance or not, and emissions from such plants generally are tested only 2 1/2 years, at most.

There is a fee that the state collects every time a new tire is sold. Approximately $1.50 of each sale goes to the state, supposedly for the purpose of subsidizing proper disposal of the tires once they’re out of commission. The problem is that this fund has regularly been raided, allocated instead for general fund expenses rather than being set aside to aid the purpose for which the tax was initially levied.

There are lots of other more Earth-friendly uses for old tires, especially once they are ground into “crumb rubber.” The byproduct is used for playground surfaces, running tracks and even in asphalt for roads. But these uses don’t fetch the same premium that they do as fuel. Meanwhile the shell game of environmental risk factors continues, and our community’s health suffers the inevitable consequences.

On a somewhat related topic, state manufacturers are incensed about proposed legislation that would lift the tax exemption for two years they’ve enjoyed on all money spent on energy to run their factories. The impact would indeed be close to home, with companies like Evraz Steel and Summit Brick realizing a significant tax increase.

The companies are fair in arguing such expenses may result in layoffs down the road. Pro-business advocates argue that the absence of such exemptions make us appear less business-friendly as a state. All of this aside, I have more of a philosophical issue with this complaint.

Personally, I get no tax break for the money I spend on electricity and gas in my home, and a big percentage of every dollar I spend on gasoline goes to the government coffers. Corporations don’t want to be treated like individuals because, theoretically, they bring more economic value to the table. They deserve special treatment.

Then the federal Supreme Court ruled recently that corporations indeed should have the same First Amendment rights to free speech that individual citizens have, which means they have free rein to donate to the political campaigns of their choosing.

It seems that businesses want to be treated as individual citizens when it benefits them, but not when it comes to taxation. This double standard not only serves to erode the confidence of a public already suspect of the impartiality of government; it also makes a mockery of the Constitution upon which our system of governance is based.

Posted in pueblo, current events, pulp, environment, economics, Columns, culture, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

April 25, 2009 by cpiatt.

NewSpin

Christian Piatt

Originally published in PULP Magazine

In the spirit of April Fool’s Day, we are encouraged to write something out of character. For me, in this column, that would require me to write something complementary about local politics.

I feel the same way about this as I used to feel when my mom tried to get me to eat green beans. Maybe I’ll just hide my column under the table and hope the dog eats it.

Seriously, I am pretty stoked about the prospects—which I think are actually very real and achievable—of Pueblo becoming the Green Energy capital of the West. People were excited when Vestas announced they were coming to town to build one of the world’s largest wind tower plants, mostly because it meant good jobs.

We greenies, on the other hand, were excited for a whole different reason. The idea that the very ethos upon which our community has subsisted for decades could change in the very near future is such a big concept that I’m dumbfounded more people aren’t talking about it. 

Add to this that there is news afloat that we may also be the beneficiaries of one of the largest solar energy arrays ever built—enough to power every home in Pueblo county and then some—pushes us even closer. The fact that President Obama signed his new energy bill in Colorado speaks to our prospects as a Green state.

Leaning upon the steel industry to keep us afloat has yielded mixed results, but there are several benefits to retooling now, while we have the chance. First, our nation’s thirst for energy does not drop at nearly the rate that the demand for steel does when times are hard. Second, unlike steel, wind and solar are renewable, meaning they can continue producing indefinitely. Finally, there’s a good deal of money in the stimulus bill for infrastructure to encourage Green development like this, which means we might be able to get our workforce newly trained on the Fed’s dollar.

The possibility that Pueblo, of all places, could become a net-zero community (one that produces at least as much energy as it consumes) should have every citizen in our county limits chomping at the proverbial bit. It should, at the very least, be the final motivation we need to implement a county-wide recycling program, to suggest to the greater public that we actually believe in this Green Energy stuff, and we’re not just in it for the money.

Okay, enough positivity. On to Pueblo City Schools Superintendent Covington. If there’s any validity to the myth that Pueblo has a self-esteem issue, it’s reinforced by opportunists like Covington who, in about a year, was almost lured away to Louisiana, having used Pueblo as a convenient stepping stone to further his career.

Never mind that he’s set a multi-year plan into motion that he has no intention of seeing through. And never mind that would have left us holding the tab for a budget deficit in the millions. What’s worse is the message it sends to our children, which is to get what you can, when and where you can, and that long-term commitment takes a back seat to personal gain.

Though he has removed his name from consideration in Baton Rouge, much of the potential damage already has been gone. He knows, as do we know, that if or when the next best thing comes along, his bags are already packed and waiting by the door.

Posted in pueblo, current events, education, environment, economics, Columns, culture, politics, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

February 18, 2009 by cpiatt.

The total negative impact of recent economic developments in the United States alone has conservatively been pegged at around two trillion dollars. That’s more than $6,500 for every person in the country. Now, we have a plan with an $800 billion price tag to help shock the system back to life. Meanwhile, economists not only say it will get worse; many are saying some of the damage is irreparable.

This resonates with recent reports on climate change that suggest even if we stop the increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions worldwide today, some effects of global warming are already irreversible.

We have not seen such pervasive nihilism in some time. After all, part of the American Ethos is optimism in face of the odds, and hope against hope, right? So what in the hell do we do now?

For anyone willing to recognize the facts, this omen has been a long time coming. Consumers have built their lifestyles upon debt, as has the government, and the economy, which once was founded upon a production-based system, now relies more on consumption and credit than on making anything.

As a result, we have presidents issuing multi-billion dollar checks and telling us to go buy plasma televisions with them, and even under a democratically-controlled Congress and White House, we end up with a stimulus package, more than forty percent of which is made up of tax cuts.

We talk systemic change and infrastructure, but short-term solutions and personal comfort and security ultimately dominate public policy. What business, after all, does a nation have in giving itself a tax cut when the already enfeebled medicare and social security systems are dissolving before our eyes on top of everything else? And this economic infusion may be our last, best hope to change things once and for all in the way we operate in the world.

But are we ready?

Perhaps the more appropriate question is, does it hurt enough yet? Sure, most of us have had to cut back, and unemployment is creeping toward double digits, but compared to other nations, we’re still incredibly well off. Most of us have money for new mobile phones, dinner out and the occasional tickets to the movies. Times are tough, but are they tough enough to enact real change?

I think this is one way in which organized religion has the potential to be very relevant in this most important global dialogue. The themes that hold true potential to redeem us, both individually and collectively, are not new, though we may tend to abandon them in times of prosperity. Consider these fundamental spiritual “truths” if you will:

It’s not all about you.

Know the difference between needs and wants.

Discomfort, and even a little suffering, is not entirely bad.

What are you doing TODAY to make the world a better place?

If you/I/we truly lived out the mandate to love our neighbors as our selves, consider how different the world would look.

Simplify.

Seek peace over success, and gratitude over results.

See God in ALL others, not just those who are easier to love.

We are caretakers of the earth. Act like it.

You need much less than you think.

No object you can buy, finance or consume will make you a better person.

Author and theologian Frederick Buechner says that your personal calling can be found where the world’s deepest need and your deepest joy intersect. For me, I believe that is found on the written page. For others, it may be right where you already are, and if so, you experience a rare blessing on a daily basis. If not, how many more days will pass before you find your own calling?

I firmly believe that, if we all were operating within the framework of our personal calling, we not only would be better off as a planet; we would be more joyful as well. The dualistic nature of the human animal is that, in the words of Paul, we do the very things we hate. And not once, but over and over again.

When might we catch on that the voice that has led us this far may not have our best interests at heart after all?

Posted in politics, economics, environment, culture, church, Columns, Blogroll, faith, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »