Skip to main content

This article has the following quote from Rev. Hendrik Grape from the World Council of Churches at an international divestment conference: "...if it is wrong to wreck the climate, it is wrong to profit from that wreckage."

Is profiting from pollution ethical?


Local church pushes fossil fuels divestment

Prodded by environmentally conscious church members in Southwest Portland, the Oregon Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has endorsed divesting church-held stocks in oil, coal and other fossil fuels corporations.

Church representatives met in Eugene last Saturday and voted 102 to 94 on a resolution urging the 4 million-member church to stop buying fossil fuels stocks and sell current holdings within five years, according to Michael Hall. He’s the leader of The Environmental Stewardship Committee of St. Luke Lutheran Church, located near Gabriel Park.

“It was Bill McKibben’s idea,” Hall says of the initiative. “A bunch of our folks went to his presentation in Portland.”

McKibben, who frequently lectures in Portland and elsewhere, is an author, environmental activist and Middlebury College professor who co-founded, a global leader in the fight against climate change. The group’s name refers to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a level that scientists have calculated is a safe level. By one measure, the globe recently hit 400 parts per million.

There are about 115 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregations in Oregon, and each sends representatives to the Oregon Synod gathering, Hall says.

The national church holds stock investments for its synod endowment, employee pension plan and seminary investments, he says.

St. Luke members hope the Oregon-passed resolution will now be considered at the annual assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, to be held in August in Pittsburgh.

“Even if we don’t make it to the floor in that meeting, word of this is going to resonate in our church,” Hall says.


John -- There are opportunities, a big one one being reducing the billions of dollars we as North Americans send to the volatile Middle East by importing so much oil....

(Here's a fun little comic I came across)

Hi John -- I agree that getting oil from Canada is a far better choice than the Middle East but I don't think we should be industrially strip mining the Alberta landscape to get the oil to supply one of the most inefficient vehicle fleets in the world.  In situ production of the oil sands (or bitumous sands :)) is much easier to accept.


~ "There are no unsacred places; there are only sacred places and desecrated places."    Wendell Berry

John -- I thought there was still a significant portion that is still going to be surface mined? (1/3?  Maybe I'm wrong.)  In my opinion it's more than a little drastic even if it is going to be reclaimed (which is different than restored) within 80 years.  I don't find that the Alberta government or the federal government has taken the issue of ghg emssions seriously like some European countries have for example.  And, that doesn't seem like it is going to change unless we speak up by voting differently and by participating in campaigns such as's divestment campaign.

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post