S:F&A minutes from the
QEW fall meeting, October 12, 2007

Present were: Alan Baker, Stan Becker, Bill Bliss, Jack Bradin, David Ciscel, Al Connor, Louis Cox, Meredith Dowling, Ed Dreby, Elaine Emmi, Bob First, Nancy First, Janet Frieswyk, Marshall Gibson, Mary Gilbert (recording) Dick Grossman (clerk), John Hackman, Lynn Heritage, Kristina Keefe-Perry (NYYM rep.) Donn Kesselheim, Judy Lumb, Carl Magruder, Angela Manno, Joelle Maruniak (FCNL intern), Tracey McCowan, Bob McGahey, Joe Morris, Chris Parr, Noel Pavlovic, Susan Swanstrom, Roy Treadway, Jean Wilson,

1.  We began by going around the room with introductions, followed by a period of silent prayer for centering on the work at hand.

2.  Dick opened by speaking about population as a big part of the sustainability problem, and presented material from a recent issue of Lancet showing that the availability of electricity is a crucial factor for global healthcare. There was brief discussion of whether electrification is better spread by developing large, centralized power plants or small, decentralized power sources based on local resources.

3.  Most of the rest of the meeting was concerned with a minute on nuclear power, put together and brought by several S:F&A interest group members coordinated by Roy Treadway. The minute had arisen in response to inquiries by members of QEW on what position QEW holds on nuclear power as a way to supply electricity in response to climate change. Discussion was chaotic; here are some of the comments.

Suggestions toward improving the minute:

• Would the minute be stronger if it were shorter?
• The language of the minute must be exact.
• Add a clause on "our provisional understanding of new possibilities."
• Add a note on the issues of security and guarding the materials, following a concern of FCNL.
• Strengthen the connection to the war machine.

 The following suggestions for additional or parallel minutes came up:

• Renewable energy sources.
• Energy efficiency and conservation.
• Lifestyle and over-consumption.
• Economic growth vs. a steady-state economy.
• Education for sustainability.
• Micro-generation, local production and distribution of energy.
• Climate change (a four-fold has just been written).

Should the present minute go forward or not?

• Bob McGahey said he could not accept the minute because of his genuine concern for humankind’s access to electric power and the world’s desperate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• We have a responsibility to learn more about nuclear energy. Is our current understanding of technology sufficient to write responsibly about this subject?
• Keith Helmut is working on a white paper on energy; perhaps we should wait to see what he has to say.
• As a member organization of FCNL, to make sure we don’t espouse something they would oppose, should we check with them (principally Ned Stowe) before approving minutes such as the one under consideration?
• QEW can make itself much less effective by promoting this minute.

General concerns

• Minutes don’t do anything.
• Are we “principle folks” who say what we stand for, or action folks who are realistic and ready to strategize so that something can be achieved?
• What are we united on?
• Thanks to the persons who wrote the minute for their work on it.

At the end of the consideration Bob McGahey could not unite with the minute, and others were uneasy with the minute as written, so the minute did not go forward at that time. Interested Friends were told they could present a revised minute to the Steering Committee on Sunday for further consideration. (Appendices below contain minutes from the plenary session on the final day of the Annual Meeting, regarding the outcome of the minute on nuclear power, and the revised text of the minute as it was then approved.)

4. We touched briefly on the following:

• Opposition to the energy bill before Congress giving $50 billion loan guarantees to new nuclear power plants currently on the drawing board.
• A Climate Change and Energy Working Group is proposed. (Ed Dreby and Al Connor will gather folks for further work.)
• Elaine talked of eight new short videos produced by Interfaith Power and Light. Would it help QEW to have such short videos on our website?

5. The meeting closed with a brief period of silence, during which many felt gratitude for Quaker process and this opportunity to learn more about its practice.

Appendix A: Text from the QEW Steering Committee minutes from October 14, 2007, addressing the agreement reached at the final plenary session regarding the minute on nuclear power discussed above.

Appendix B: The revised version of the minute on nuclear power adopted by the Steering Committee on Oct. 12, 2007.

Appendix A

2007.10.26: Sustainability: Faith and Action – Minute on Nuclear Power – Roy Treadway reporting

1. A Working Group composed of Roy Treadway, Mary Gilbert, Carolyn Treadway, Jack Bradin, and Angela Manno had developed a draft Minute. After considerable discussion, the Sustainability: Faith and Action committee was not able to come to unity.

2. That working group, plus Ed Dreby and Judy Lumb, worked on a revision of the Minute, making it shorter and changing the emphasis somewhat. The new draft was distributed, read aloud, and discussed. Concerns raised included a sense of urgency because of the impending Energy bill in Congress that includes $50 billion for loan guarantees for new nuclear energy plants; the feeling that what is necessary is to dismantle the entire industrial machine, not just the nuclear power industry; and that there is a need world-wide for electricity as service to the poor. Yet, solutions need to be uniquely designed for particular places with input from the local people.

3.  Friend Bob McGahey could not unite with the minute, expressed his concerns, but stated that he is willing to stand aside. He offered to continue to work with the working group on the content of the Minute. Another Friend expressed reservations about the Sustainability Faith & Action committee revising and sending out the minute without some further chance for Friends to review the revised version, but united with sending the revised minute to Continuing Counsel for that seasoning. That Friend added that because the issue is complex it’s important for QEW, not only to be very sure that our facts are straight and our statements true, but also somehow to honor the work of Friends who have been faithful in their disagreement with this stand. Another Friend suggested that we check the facts with a Quaker expert in Canada.

The nuclear power minute was approved in principle with the modifications brought up in this meeting for worship for business with Friend Bob McGahey standing aside. Friends agreed to send the final version to Continuing Counsel for review. If unity is reached in CC, the Minute will be distributed widely.

Appendix B:

Quaker Earthcare Witness Minute on Nuclear Power

Approved by the Steering Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness

in session, October 14, 2007, Burlington, Vermont.

Quaker Earthcare Witness cannot support nuclear power as part of the solution to harmful climate change.

As Friends, our peace testimony has long led us to witness against nuclear power because of its connection to nuclear war. Our deep caring for all creation leads us to affirm that witness, even in the face of growing calls for an expansion of nuclear power.

Based on everything we know about the current state of nuclear technology and our understanding of its impact and risks for people and the earth, we are strongly opposed - for moral, spiritual, and practical reasons - to current efforts to increase nuclear power. Additionally, we are strongly opposed to subsidies for funding new nuclear power plants, including proposed loan guarantees such as those in energy bills currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.

While nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases during electricity generation, in fact significant amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted when the complete cycle of nuclear power – from mining, milling, enrichment of uranium, transportation of nuclear fuel, and removal and guarding of nuclear wastes, as well as construction of nuclear power plants – is considered.

Nuclear power is extremely expensive when all costs, including subsidies, are included. We believe that funds proposed for more nuclear power plants would be far more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions if used for energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable power.

Nuclear power is closely linked to the war machine in many countries. The cumulative effects of radioactive waste from nuclear power will be lethal, carcinogenic, and mutagenic to humans and all species for hundreds of thousands of years. Finally, given nuclear power’s unique destructiveness, the risk of just one catastrophic accident anywhere in the world renders nuclear power unacceptable.

QEW also affirms that providing more energy to support unconstrained economic growth is neither inevitable nor desirable.

We accept the responsibility of working for all socially responsible and environmentally sound solutions to global climate change, including phasing-out the use of oil, coal, and gas; and increasing energy efficiency, energy conservation; and renewable sources of energy. We accept the responsibility for using less energy in all that we do and for working to make reduction of energy use a goal for society at large.