RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Put Poor People on the Climate Change Agenda

by Jim Wallis 10-15-2009

Last week, a group of senators, many in the leadership of the majority Democratic Party, asked for a meeting with a small group of interfaith religious leaders. Their topic: climate change. The Senate now has a bill that will soon be up for a vote and the 10 senators wanted our feedback — and also our support. I was asked to say a few words. Here is what I said:

Thanks for the invitation. You have, I am sure, heard us speak about creation care as the commitment we have to the environment. Most of us believe that human-caused climate change is a threat to God’s creation. Religious leaders actually do listen to scientists, and they are telling us that the pace of climate change is all happening even faster than expected. A good climate bill could signal a whole new direction and could even be a “three-for.”

  1. It could protect the environment and begin to slow and eventually even reverse the dangerous and deadly impact of climate change.
  2. It could create important and meaningful green energy jobs, many of which could be an opportunity for low-income and undereducated people, and also be good paying work.
  3. It could change our foreign policy, which has been dominated by successive wars over oil. This could begin to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.

But here is the heart of the moral issue for many of us. Simply put, those around the world who have contributed least to global warming and climate change will be the most and first to be impacted by the consequences of it all. Sadly, it’s an old story. We, the affluent, create the problem, and the poor pay the price for our sins. It is wrong, and it is a sin — ours.

Yet the amount of money to help poor people and countries mitigate or adapt to climate changes being proposed in this legislation is not nearly enough (through the emissions “cap and trade” penalties that wealthy countries would have to pay). The numbers are not clear yet in your bill, but the amount of funds directed toward “adaptations” for the poorest countries in the House bill (which came before the Senate bill) is pitiful — really pitiful. It is wholly and woefully inadequate.

This is such an important issue for us that some in the faith community are considering not supporting this bill at all. They have called me to say that they might not support the final bill unless you do much better in the Senate. So if you hear anything from us today, hear that. Your Senate bill must do better — much better — for the poorest of God’s children.

There are always concessions and money for other important constituencies — all more powerful than poor people. The bill is full of those concessions to other special interests. I know you say you don’t have the votes. And we know that the global poor are not on the agenda of U.S. domestic politics. But they are on God’s agenda, and therefore on ours. And we ask you today to put the global poor back on the agenda of this climate bill.

If you do, we will help you commend it to the American people — including the people in our faith communities. But the poorest of God’s children will have to be included in the results of any bill worthy of our support.

After expressing concern and some consternation, and after giving advice to “not make the perfect the enemy of the good,” the senators said they would immediately go back to their offices and staffs to try and do “better.”

Categories: Environment
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • LibertarianChristian
    Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

    Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

    The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

    Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

    We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.
  • LibertarianChristian
    Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

    Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

    The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

    Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

    We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.
  • LibertarianChristian
    Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

    Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

    The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

    Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

    We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.
  • BillSamuelson1
    Wow, good comments, I agree that we need to address the needs of real people not some projected future catastrophe based on computer models. I have friends living in the Philippines who twice a day have sewer water running a few inches deep through the community they live in. It would be a worth project of charity or local government to alleviate that problem. But to make a fuss over a nutrient (to plants) that only comprises 0.038% of the atmosphere is absurd! And even if Al Gore is right and a one degree change at the equator equals a six degree change at the polls, that would be a big blessing for places like Siberia (I am serious). What a boon to Russia to be able to access it resources and expand its farmland.
  • BillSamuelson1
    Wow, did you know that 380 parts per million of CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere? Did you know that this amount is only just above the suffocation level for green plants? That if the CO2 amounts were much less than the plants would die? Sure, 5% CO2 in our atmosphere would cause a problem because of Carbonic Acid in our lungs and 10% would kill insects and small animals. But right now we are less than one half of one tenth of one percent and nowhere near the toxic rate.
  • WitnessforPeace
    I have an “Oh” as well. I failed to close the loop: the idea of absolute truth began to be doubted around the time of the Enlightenment, and it took over theology in 19th Germany among the “higher critics” and so forth (modernism). Scientists have been swept up in the tide of Modernism for quite a while, although we like to think they were the last to go. Perhaps engineers will be truly the last to go: if you build a bridge based on ideological principles, its failure will be rather obvious. Although the failures of the West in the Holocaust should've been pretty obvious..... Instead we just fine-tuned Modernism and came up with post-Modernism! I rant and rave some more about this in my post “Six Billion Monotheists?” at www.joyfulreality.blogspot.com
  • WitnessforPeace
    Hi Bbuudd, Thanks for keeping the thread alive. I don't know you, and I suspect you are a decent person, so please don't take offense if I am not gentle with your arguments. By speaking u, we each invoke some baggage from left or right, so the “guidelines” are difficult to follow, especially since that “Long monologue of the Religious Right” quip at the top of the site violates the guidelines right off the bat. No, you didn't directly slam Limbaugh. If you, like me, suspect there are kernels (Nuggets? Boulders?) of wisdom buried amidst the bombast, Bravo! If you suspect right wing talk show audiences are listening because of frustration at the bias of the mainstream media, add kudos to your bravo. Anyway, arguments here have been going: Climate Change is a fact. Those who believe otherwise are (pick one or more) ostriches, ignorant, begging God to zap them like he zapped folks in the Old Testament. My point was: Why believe the experts?
    Not only have they failed to convince liberals to get out of their SUV's, but the whole idea of truth has been corrupted. Yes, by scientists. Take evolution. Perhaps God used evolution as part of the Creation process. Fine with me. Call it theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, whatever. But Evolution as an overarching worldview has a sordid history: Margaret Sanger, her friends and allies the eugenics crowd (Hint: “unwanted child” means “black baby”). If other species evolved through catastrophes that caused them to die out, why don't we see famine, war, and abortion as merely the impersonal, inevitable way in which evolution works? (Peter Singer even believes in infanticide, and he's not alone.) That's scary, so the implications of the truth of the day [sic] were buried under the euphemism “Social Darwinism” which nice people, supposedly, don't believe in anymore. The most consistent believers in evolution grew out of the
    liberal protestantism of the 19th Century. A weakened German Church fell prey to the horrors of Nazism—it wasn't an accident. Bultmann took their money, and somehow his reputation survived. Karl Barth—most assuredly NOT a liberal, lost his job and fled the country. Bonhoeffer, also no liberal, left Germany for the US, then returned, and died naked, strangled by a wire around his neck. Niemoeller somehow survived, protected most likely by his WWI war hero status. Getting back to evolution, yes, the Nazis were “helping evolution along.” But isn't that just what an “intelligent”, sentient species is MOST likely to do? Anyway, the world is a mess, in rebellion against the loving, Creator God, and scientists aren't this austere, all knowing priesthood that exists in the snowy white clouds far above the fray of politics. Please....and thanks for listening, too.
  • bbuudd
    Oh.
  • bbuudd
    Interesting. You began this truth thread by claiming that "when there was truth, there were experts." Science manipulates truth?

    How did you drag Limbaugh into this? And why? And where, pray tell, did you come up with the claim that I think his listeners are stupid?
  • WitnessforPeace
    Thanks for your thoughts. Sounds like we do have a number of things in common. In fact, none of us know one another, and our TV-driven, one liner world invites oversimplification. It may have been another poster (bbuudd) who seemed particularly narrow minded rather than you. Beg pardon!
    Liberal is a good word; I spent most of my young adult years being accused of being one. Many conservatives are actually very conservative with resources. Many liberals, too. But not my neighbors (big cars, bigger houses, and extremely left/liberal in their voting patterns.). And my landlady has scolded me more than once for hanging out laundry! (Not only saves energy, but smells GREAT!)
    Where we probably diverge a lot is that I think the global crisis is more a failure of mercantilism and other disruptive forms of intervention. But I'm not an economist either (not that the economists know, of course.)
    I think we are already paying for our profligacy with resources: Huge lawns create more than physical distance from neighbors, there is real alienation out there. Ultimately it is a spiritual problem, which the government can't fix.
    Blessings,
    Witness4Peace
  • BuckeyeDon
    “one who shares your finely tuned liberal instincts”

    What I dislike, Witness, however you wish to word it, is your presumption that, because I am convinced that global warming/climate change is a real and imminent threat, I must therefore be a "liberal." You don't know me; you are not familiar with my views on other topics. What gives you the knowledge that I must be "liberal"? (Whatever that is--and that's an issue too, since the word has become an epithet and has lost most of its political meaning, IMO. So have “conservative” and “socialist,” for that matter.) You might be surprised about my views on many topics. Some may indeed be "liberal" by your definition, but I doubt whether all of them are.

    In fact, regarding climate change and environmental issues, I believe I’m actually a conservative. I’m using that term in its original meaning. The Latin conservare is the root for both “conservative” and “conservation.” (Tell that to the self-identified conservative “drill, baby, drill!” people.) I am convinced of climate change not only because of the scientific evidence but also because one singular characteristic of our industrial, consumerist, global economy age is wasteful profligacy. We have consumed the earth’s resources at an increasingly ravenous rate and are reaching a breaking point. Nobody can tell me that we can’t pump huge and increasing amounts of carbon, carbon that had been sequestered inside the earth for millions of years, at ever accelerating rates into the atmosphere without affecting something.

    I have never been a fan of Al Gore; I never voted for him for any office. And, yes, he’s been rather less than a stellar role model in terms of practicing what he preaches. But that fact doesn’t invalidate any of his global warming arguments; only the scientific evidence could do that. Galileo, I understand, was an insufferable jerk who managed to offend just about everyone who got to know him. That fact didn’t nullify any of his observations or invalidate any of his arguments, either. Therefore, your ad hominem comments about him and other Hollywood “liberals” are invalid arguments against global warming.

    I also think Gore’s proposed solutions to the problem (e.g., recycling, driving hybrids, swapping out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent ones) are lame and won’t work to solve the problem. Not that we shouldn’t be doing those things to save energy--of course we should. But Gore’s mistake, one shared by just about all our leaders, is that we can fix all these problems and still keep our profligate lifestyles intact. That won’t work. Climate change isn’t the only problem we face. Our wastefulness has resulted in resource shortages and depletions across the board—water, soil, and, yes, even fossil fuels. The fix will require major lifestyle changes and changes in expectations, and no politician is willing to announce that fact. But the changes will happen; the only question is whether we will make them voluntarily or be forced into them. Because nature bats last, as one blogger succinctly puts it. The global ecosystem will have the last word. (God normally doesn’t intervene in the natural processes he set up at creation, so when an imbalance occurs, God is usually content to let nature address and correct the imbalance. Plus, I don’t think he will intervene to bail us out of the consequences of our own foolishness. He’s given us plenty of warning through his prophets.)

    The current economic recession, I believe, is only the beginning of a long period of economic contraction as globalism, corporate capitalism, and industrialism gradually find their way into history’s dumpster. Neither the current administration nor most of our politicians have a clue about what’s coming down the road.

    I agree with you that a direct carbon tax would be more effective—and more honest—than this cap and trade proposal. And I agree that we need to fund public transport (e.g, Amtrak) more than new highways and auto industry subsides. (I don’t think the auto industry will survive the coming shortages and economic contractions anyway, and we will still need ways to get around.) But a cap and trade is still better than doing nothing. We ought to get used to higher energy prices and really learn to conserve. Finding ways to save energy could actually give us a genuine economic revival.

    Peace,
    Don
  • WitnessforPeace
    bbuudd said: "Certainty is a state of mind where no more information is accepted and no more thinking is required; the one with the certain mind sets their self upon a pedestal for all to see."
    That's a pretty accurate description of Obama's climate "experts" and an even better depiction of judges and the Dept. of Education, who insist that only non-Christians can describe Christianity to impressionable young minds. I agree, there is a folk religion of nationalism that persists quite strongly. But I'm speaking of the religion the Federal government has imposed upon the states: a veritable "establishment" in defiance of several parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In that religion, secularist certainty replaces the search for truth, lest it be found in Christianity or any other historical faith.
  • WitnessforPeace
    I'm sorry my phraseology offended you. I was using it merely as a description. I suppose I should've said “one who shares your finely tuned liberal instincts” which means basically the same thing.
    Are you an expert on climate change? I'm not. I don't consider myself qualified to make a five thousand word, point by point rebuttal. So it is a battle of the experts, and Obama's experts don't believe in truth, so why should anyone believe them? Obama, and Jim before him, haven't even changed liberals' minds enough to get them out of their SUV's. I'm sorry you don't like this argument, but we elect our leaders, and our impressions of them and their behavior are extremely important.
    If you mean what public policy ideas do I support, let me try: raising taxes is something to consider. Obama could start by saying “I'm sorry I promised to only raise taxes on the rich. I was wrong. I am going to tax ordinary people and make up for it by acting on a consensus basis like my successful predecessor, Bill Clinton, did. I will not sign a tax increase that is not supported by at least one third of the opposition.” We could increase gas taxes by two dollars or three dollars per gallon. Some of the cash could be returned to lower income folks via the IRS; even this is a burden, unless the poor can file for a rebate more often than once per year. We all, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, need to be accountable for our behavior, even if Al Gore and the Hollywood crowd aren't. Their failings are NOT an excuse for inaction; I hope you don't think I was saying that.
    As for a general energy tax, we should see what China is doing. It is not fair to tax our lower income folk while everyone in China, especially party members and the rapidly growing upper class, gets a free ticket to pollute.
    Amtrak should be given a permanent chunk of the gas taxes; I think even a penny a gallon would help them greatly with long-range planning.
    And I would even consider re-negotiating some sort of cap and trade, after scrapping the abomination Pelosi shoved down even the throats of many reluctant Democrats. Our system is broken; my hopes for anything good coming out of it in the short term are slim, but we should start with some honesty. (See the speech I wrote for Obama, above.)
  • WitnessforPeace
    “What is truth”—you are quoting the cynic, Pilate. And, no, truth is not what YOU think sets
    people free; it's what really sets them free, free from the idolatry of thinking we can do it on our own,
    without Jesus, without the Holy Spirit, and especially without repentance.
    You are not the arbiter of what truth is, neither am I. It exists apart from anyone believing it, or it is no truth at all. Once "science" began to manipulate the truth, people saw through it; not just well educated Christians, but those "angry white men" that listen to rubbish like Limbaugh. I haven't heard him in years, but I suspect his listeners sense that Limbaugh "gets it" in a way today's ruling class doesn't. Sure, he's obnoxious and frequently wrong, but people know that the "experts" are wrong too:
    Why believe "facts" from someone who doesn't believe "facts" exist? Limbaugh's listeners; some of them, may be uneducated. But they are not stupid just because you think they are.
  • WitnessforPeace
    "But this is beside the point"Not beside the point at all. Don't confuse my belief in the truth with an assertion that I have somehow grasped certainty. I don't know everything; I do know that truth exists, and that the Truth is Jesus, a specific person, Son of God, very God of very God. He did not speak in riddles; he made us think even while he explicitly affirmed every last stroke of the Law. (The Law was fulfilled on the Cross, but that doesn't mean God changed his mind about anything. It no longer binds us word for word, but it still is perfect—a perfect if incomplete window into the thoughts of God which are way, way beyond our own. They judge us, we don't judge them.) “No man ever spake like this man” Jesus taught with authority, because he HAD authority. To be sure, his statements are designed to make us think, and he vigorously contradicted the Pharisees and their self-serving, self-satisfied certainty. While Christians (even me!
    Gasp!)are guilty of Pharisaism from time to time, today's Pharisees are the ruling class that force Christianity to the sidelines, lest it pollute the minds of our youth. In Mark 3, Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for their hard hearts in refusing to meet the need of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. In my state, Catholic Charities was forced to discontinue adoptions because they offended a powerful, liberal, special interest group.
    That is Pharisaism: ideology over human need. Getting back to climate change, the rich will always be able to afford onerous energy taxes and gas for their SUV's; it's ordinary folks and poor people that Jim will allow to suffer. I'm distressed that he can't see this, and appears to be blinded by the Obama glare. In the first years of Bush 43, he wrote a whining column in his mag about how the White House didn't invite him over anymore. Sadly, that foreshadowed his activism on behalf of the powerful in the name of the poor and needy. A sad fall—upwards, pleasing the new masters.
    Blessings,
    Witness4Peace
  • bbuudd
    "If we, as a society have stopped believing in the truth, why should we search for it? Why should anyone listen to a self proclaimed expert? When there was truth, there were experts. Now, with our state religion of secularism, neither exist."

    Truth? What is truth? It is what sets you free. The 'truth' of yesteryear was little more than a self-proclaimed grasp of certainty. Certainty is a state of mind where no more information is accepted and no more thinking is required; the one with the certain mind sets their self upon a pedestal for all to see.

    If one follows Jesus closely, they may see that his was not a formulaic, one-size-fits-all philosophy. He confounded his followers and critics alike by seeming to play both sides against the middle by not giving clear, concise, expert answers.

    I believe our state religion is not secularism, but nationalism with a sprinkling of Pauline phraseology with an undefined "under God" underpinning.

    But this is beside the point.

    The point is that without legislating benefits and protections for the poor of the world in any climate change action, they will be plowed under simply because there is no short-term benefit to the wealthy, powerful, and mighty.

    To allow this to happen without taking a strong and vocal stand against it is to fail in an even more spectacular manner than did the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
  • WitnessforPeace
    Thanks for bringing up science and communication. There is indeed a problem: in spite of the obvious health impacts of a lousy diet—and I'm not just talking about the obesity epidemic—people continue to believe food ads: “eat what we tell you to”. There is a widespread cynicism, and it is not wholly the public's fault. The public is lied to all the time: Reagan lied about invading Central America in the 80's, Clinton lied about his affair in the 90's, and so on. The whole notion of truth has broken down, and scientists and other academicians have actually led the way. People have noticed that supposedly intelligent people lie all the time, and aren't trustworthy. The lie that science disproves the Bible, for example, or the embarrassing anti-Christian diatribes by Sam Harris, et al, show an utter lack of accountability. The distinction between Hollywood make believe and newscasters has become pretty slim. bbuudd said:“Simply ignoring the plight of the powerless, the poor, and the weak (ignored by the powerful, strong, and wealthy) because it costs too much is not an acceptable argument."
    I couldn't agree more. Al Gore ought not to be bashed, indeed, but he needs to be held accountable for his lavish lifestyle by the media, and by Jim Wallis and company. Jim never talks about personal self indulgence; it's as if he's given up on sexual discipline and the discipline of searching for the truth. If we, as a society have stopped believing in the truth, why should we search for it? Why should anyone listen to a self proclaimed expert? When there was truth, there were experts. Now, with our state religion of secularism, neither exist.
  • Anothernonymous
    That would be me, and for the same reasons Buckeye Don just cited.
  • BuckeyeDon
    The Boston Globe column you meant to post here never appeared. You should be glad it didn't.

    It came to me in my e-mail, though. Calling me a knee-jerk liberal isn't a very good way of convincing me that you're right and I'm wrong now, is it? It's just another ad hominem. Not to mention that it doesn't display a Christlike spirit, and it doesn't meet the comment code of conduct and would likely have been reported and removed.

    If you really are a scientist, why do you resort to personal attacks against those whom you disagree with? Why can't you present scientific evidence that skepticism regarding climate change is a legitimate position? I'm not all that impressed with your coming up with names, institutional affiliations, and all that, if you can't tell us yourself why the overwhelming evidence of climate change hasn't convinced you. It's as if you think trotting out those names and institutional affiliations is enough.

    And further, your answer to my question (Do you have a better way [than a carbon tax or cap and trade] to drastically reduce carbon emissions?) was wholly inadequate and not really an answer at all. Just telling me that the liberals should all practice what they preach is only more ad hominem nonsense. And besides, we're all--liberals, conservative, Christians, athiests, tall, short, whatever--in this together.

    So why don't you stop attacking, and instead tell me why these guys (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791) are wrong.
  • WitnessforPeace
    YES! Feeding starving children is the ultimate bleeding heart liberal project, and I'm all for it. Kids are dying TODAY; we're sure of that. We don't know the impact of a massive energy tax increase, except that poor people will pay more for energy. With both issues, we need to beware of unintended consequences, of course: boatloads of free American wheat can undermine the local food production economy, but World Vision and many secular groups can provide legitimate advice on how to help without hurting.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008