Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

[Ender]

i would like to know why we have to prove man-made global climate change, before we make stewardship a moral issue.

We don’t; these two issues are completely unrelated. No one is arguing that we shouldn’t be good stewards, we are debating the claim that climate change is a moral issue. You appear to make the assumption that those of us who disbelieve in AGW are indifferent to the environment and the suffering of the poor. This is untrue. For myself, I don’t believe that man can have any significant effect on the climate, that he hasn’t had any significant effect on the climate and that actions taken to “mitigate” global warming are worse than useless. You assume that AGW is not just true but so blindingly obvious that the only reason to reject it is out of disregard for the environment. We simply believe that it is false and that no actions taken based on a false theory can possibly be beneficial.

and here is what the pope said only last year:

"“The brutal consumption of Creation begins where God is not, where matter is henceforth only material for us,…

I don’t dispute this but, again, it is irrelevant to the issue. Rejecting the the theory of AGW doesn’t say anything at all about my position on the environment, it simply means that I think the theory is wrong and it is not sinful of me to believe this. There can be no moral component involved in accepting or rejecting a scientific theory.

Ender

 

[cathybramble]

I guess it all comes down to what constitutes “destruction of the environment,” and that has to be decided on a case by case basis, as a matter of prudential judgement.

Discharging sewage into a clean river is pretty destructive of the environment.
Building a subdivision of homes destroys the existing environment but provides homes for people. Sounds like a good tradeoff.

Building just one home in a rural area surrounded by acres of natural land is less destructive of the environment but less efficient use of resources.

Banning DDT because of the harm it would do to certain species helped preserve those species, but resulted in a re-outbreak of malaria in humans, because we were no longer spraying the mosquito populations with DDT.

Large scale attempts at global climate change seem doomed to fail as long as most other countries wish to continue the process of economic development, as they do. Who are we to tell China, or Vietnam or any other country that they are forbidden to use coal and oil to continue their economic development?

Hardly any instance of human activity, either to protect the environment, or to use or destroy the environment, is without unforseen consequences.

The “environment” changes with time, and in most cases humans have minimal control over it. Actually, humans are part of the environment. So let’s just carefully consider the possible consequences of our actions, whether we consider them to be pro-environment or not.

this is what i think too we need to do the best we can, considering all factors. definitely humans are part of the environment… when we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.

incidentally i’ve had this discussion about DDT before, and when i researched it a little, i learned that DDT does cause miscarriages. now it seems very noble to say that some unborn babies can be sacrificed to save many other people, but that just sticks in my craw as a pro-lifer. i know i would not be willing to volunteer my unborn child at least… and nobody should have to. in the final analysis, DDT has benefits, yes - but it is not good either for animals or people (usually works out that way, if something is bad for animals, it is bad for us too). it just tells me that humans need to challenge themselves to find a better way, for the sake of all involved. and we’re clever like that, being made in the image of God and all

 

[JimG]

this is what i think too we need to do the best we can, considering all factors. definitely humans are part of the environment… when we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.

incidentally i’ve had this discussion about DDT before, and when i researched it a little, i learned that DDT does cause miscarriages. now it seems very noble to say that some unborn babies can be sacrificed to save many other people, but that just sticks in my craw as a pro-lifer. i know i would not be willing to volunteer my unborn child at least… and nobody should have to. in the final analysis, DDT has benefits, yes - but it is not good either for animals or people (usually works out that way, if something is bad for animals, it is bad for us too). it just tells me that humans need to challenge themselves to find a better way, for the sake of all involved. and we’re clever like that, being made in the image of God and all

I’m no expert on the use of DDT. It is apparently very effective against the mosquitoes which carry the malaria. I found this article concerning its use, and it remains a somewhat contentious issue, mainly, it seems to me, because in the countries where mosquitoes most need to be controlled it must be used indoors as well as outdoors. The residual indoor spray appears to be quite effective indoors and I don’t know what alternatives there are.

Neither do I know what studies have been done as to miscarriages from DDT use. In any case, malaria must be controlled in those developing countries, and it will apparently controlled only through effective insecticides.

 

[po18guy]

someone in this thread said we should first love God, and then creation. i would like to know how it is possible to love God and wantonly destroy His creation as we do.

Your choice of the term “wantonly” is interesting. So, why should we equate creation with God? We must associate it with Him, respect and preserve it to the best of our ability, of course, but equate? Please consider what this implies! That is the entire problem with our secular world - worshipping creation in preference to the Creator. NOT SAYING YOU DO THIS, just that it is happening en masse.

Consider that the church is responding to the “climate change” issue - it did not initiate it. The secular world comprised of various and disparate power-seeking groups began it. They all seek money and power over you, with no guarantee of result. Are you comfortable with that?

here’s ya something to chew on, from and article on the US conference of catholic bishops web site:

First: You miss the point! They say nothing about having determined that man is causing climate change. They are speaking of stewardship, which NO ONE here is debating. Second: I specifically distrust the USCCB on almost all counts. They cannot even find the courage to communally condemn Notre Dame! I pray for them - they need it badly.

and here is what the pope said only last year:

Not one word in there about man causing “global warming” or “climate change”. I think that many have read way too much into this. Environmental laws we have aplenty. Men are in prison for violating them! We are absolutely called to be good stewards of the earth. We each do what we can. Just how does one make the giant leap of faith from being a good steward to swallowing the allegation/assumption that we are all going to die on a parched earth - and it’s all our fault? This is pure fear-mongering and many of us have fallen prey to it.

Bear in mind that what is being asked for is “global cooling”. That is a 100% guarantee of lower crop yields. How does this help the poor? Conversely, it will only increase their number.

 

[Calliso]

Your choice of the term “wantonly” is interesting. So, why should we equate creation with God? We must associate it with Him, respect and preserve it to the best of our ability, of course, but equate? Please consider what this implies! That is the entire problem with our secular world - worshipping creation in preference to the Creator. NOT SAYING YOU DO THIS, just that it is happening en masse.

Consider that the church is responding to the “climate change” issue - it did not initiate it. The secular world comprised of various and disparate power-seeking groups began it. They all seek money and power over you, with no guarantee of result. Are you comfortable with that?

First: You miss the point! They say nothing about having determined that man is causing climate change. They are speaking of stewardship, which NO ONE here is debating. Second: I specifically distrust the USCCB on almost all counts. They cannot even find the courage to communally condemn Notre Dame! I pray for them - they need it badly.

Not one word in there about man causing “global warming” or “climate change”. I think that many have read way too much into this. Environmental laws we have aplenty. Men are in prison for violating them! We are absolutely called to be good stewards of the earth. We each do what we can. Just how does one make the giant leap of faith from being a good steward to swallowing the allegation/assumption that we are all going to die on a parched earth - and it’s all our fault? This is pure fear-mongering and many of us have fallen prey to it.

Bear in mind that what is being asked for is “global cooling”. That is a 100% guarantee of lower crop yields. How does this help the poor? Conversely, it will only increase their number.

Ummm no one is asking for global cooling…just to try and prevent or keep any further warming down to a certain level. Like 2 degrees not that 2 degrees is safe though and at the rate we are going we are pretty likely to surpass that…

 

[po18guy]

Ummm no one is asking for global cooling…just to try and prevent or keep any further warming down to a certain level. Like 2 degrees not that 2 degrees is safe though and at the rate we are going we are pretty likely to surpass that…

Doesn’t this render the entire matter completely subjective? Why not 3º, or 1º? Why is 2º moral, while 3º or 1º immoral? This thread is about morality, and it seems like those who question the fear/concern surrounding climate change are being marginalized. A “serious moral issue” sounds like the OP is making it a mortal sin. Whew! Now what???

Suppose that we settle on a “good” amount of climarte change. How do we accomplish it? How do we replace the trillions that now are sent to the climate instead of to the poor? Now that sounds like a moral question.

 

[Calliso]

Doesn’t this render the entire matter completely subjective? Why not 3º, or 1º? Why is 2º moral, while 3º or 1º immoral? This thread is about morality, and it seems like those who question the fear/concern surrounding climate change are being marginalized. A “serious moral issue” sounds like the OP is making it a mortal sin. Whew! Now what???

Suppose that we settle on a “good” amount of climarte change. How do we accomplish it? How do we replace the trillions that now are sent to the climate instead of to the poor? Now that sounds like a moral question.

To be honest if we try to do something about climate change for instance cut carbon emissions but still reach lets say 3 degrees I donlt think it would it would be immoral because we surpassed the 2 degree mark because we tried to do something. Now if we chose to ignore the science and do nothing then yes I think it could really be a moral issue. Now do I think mortal sin level…not really sure but that does seem extreme. Because you also have to take into account the fact that especially with the media so often playing up the small but loud dissenting side many people donlt really know what to believe. So holding them to that degree of moral responsiblity seems a bit unfair.

And I think the 2 degree thing has more to do with trying to avoid potentially nasty feedback efffects like tundra melting and releasing tons of methane into the air which is a more powerful greenhouse gas then co2. And then there is issues of ice albedo. Ice reflects heat open water absorbs it.

I do not know how much co2 emissions will have to be cut exactly to produce the desired effect I think this is still being debated. But being that climate change is likely to effect the poor likely quite negatively putting money into climate change is basically helping the poor in the way. Helping prevent or at least lessen the potentially and likely damage to them. Also trillions seems a bit high.

 

[Calliso]

i would like to know why we have to prove man-made global climate change, before we make stewardship a moral issue. we were given that responsibility from the beginning, and we are failing miserably at it. it is a moral issue, period, it was a directive from God to take care of creation.

someone in this thread said we should first love God, and then creation. i would like to know how it is possible to love God and wantonly destroy His creation as we do.

here’s ya something to chew on, from and article on the US conference of catholic bishops web site:

“Here is the truth about the Original Sin: humankind is relentlessly destructive. The human imagination is so diseased by sin that we defeat our own interests time and time again. We have depleted the fisheries from which we eat, poisoned the rivers from which we drink, and fouled even the air we breathe. Worst of all, we live denying these facts, which gives the full measure of our sinfulness. In this sinful denial, people could run so many cattle over vast areas of grass that they destroy the grass. We could cut down so many trees that we deforest our own woods.”

usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/background/articles/ecological.shtml

and here is what the pope said only last year:

““The brutal consumption of Creation begins where God is not, where matter is henceforth only material for us, where we ourselves are the ultimate demand, where the whole is merely our property and we consume it for ourselves alone…I think, therefore, that true and effective initiatives to prevent the waste and destruction of Creation can be implemented and developed, understood and lived, only where Creation is considered as beginning with God.”
-Pope Benedict XVI, August 2008”

And the thing is you can;t prove this current global climate change is in part due to man. Not with out getting another earth and running the experiment there as well and maybe speeding things up a bit to see what happens. Instead we are basically running an experiment on our own planet. One that could possibly mean suffering for millions perhaps even billions of people especially if we donlt do anything…trust me the predictions donlt get rosier then higher the temperature goes up

 

[po18guy]

I would like to point out that we live in the age of rejection of God, hysteria and junk science. Also, I note that China and India, gross polluters, are exempted from many proposed “solutions”. This is insanity.

 

[cathybramble]

Your choice of the term “wantonly” is interesting. So, why should we equate creation with God? We must associate it with Him, respect and preserve it to the best of our ability, of course, but equate? Please consider what this implies! That is the entire problem with our secular world - worshipping creation in preference to the Creator. NOT SAYING YOU DO THIS, just that it is happening en masse.

we do wantonly destroy. do some research on what is going on with pollution as it relates to over-consumerism, our rain forests, our oceans, our lakes and streams… you name it - it is being utterly trashed.

i do not equate God and creation - but how can people say they love God and then trash His creation the way we do?

Consider that the church is responding to the “climate change” issue - it did not initiate it. The secular world comprised of various and disparate power-seeking groups began it. They all seek money and power over you, with no guarantee of result. Are you comfortable with that?

how does someone gain power over me when i already choose to take care of the earth as best i can?

First: You miss the point! They say nothing about having determined that man is causing climate change. They are speaking of stewardship, which NO ONE here is debating. Second: I specifically distrust the USCCB on almost all counts. They cannot even find the courage to communally condemn Notre Dame! I pray for them - they need it badly.

well please then look up what you feel are credible sources on this issue, and if you can find something that says we’re not trashing the environment and we’re not harming the poor with over-consumerism and pollution… forward it on

Not one word in there about man causing “global warming” or “climate change”. I think that many have read way too much into this. Environmental laws we have aplenty. Men are in prison for violating them! We are absolutely called to be good stewards of the earth. We each do what we can. Just how does one make the giant leap of faith from being a good steward to swallowing the allegation/assumption that we are all going to die on a parched earth - and it’s all our fault? This is pure fear-mongering and many of us have fallen prey to it.

Bear in mind that what is being asked for is “global cooling”. That is a 100% guarantee of lower crop yields. How does this help the poor? Conversely, it will only increase their number.

we need to step up to the plate, admit we are doing a lousy job with the earth’s resources, and work to change it. hammering out details of “global climate change theory” is a bickering point and excuse for those who don’t want to take care of the earth or live a little “smaller.” environmental laws have not prevented the destruction of the rain forest, nor have they protected the oceans, lakes, streams, groundwater, wildlife, or the poor who are exposed to manure lagoons in north carolina, mexico, or romania… epic fail … and it’s time to do something about it.

 

[cathybramble]

I would like to point out that we live in the age of rejection of God, hysteria and junk science. Also, I note that China and India, gross polluters, are exempted from many proposed “solutions”. This is insanity.

i agree. they need to be held to international polluting regulations. but you can see how international laws work by looking at whaling and dolphin hunting, unfortunately.

 

[po18guy]

we do wantonly destroy. do some research on what is going on with pollution as it relates to over-consumerism, our rain forests, our oceans, our lakes and streams… you name it - it is being utterly trashed.

Are you and I the ones doing this? I stay out of lakes, streams, rain forests and oceans. I leave nature alone, drive a 35mpg car, fervently recycle and complain about over-packaging of products. Am I still guilty? I just question and distrust the bleatings of hysterical and power-seeking individuals and groups. They all seek money and power.

i do not equate God and creation - but how can people say they love God and then trash His creation the way we do?

Well, they don’t. And, what do you mean “we”?

how does someone gain power over me when i already choose to take care of the earth as best i can?

By forcing you to do things that are subjective and arbitrary, that’s how. By fining and jailing you when you do not obediently follow their dictates.

well please then look up what you feel are credible sources on this issue, and if you can find something that says we’re not trashing the environment and we’re not harming the poor with over-consumerism and pollution… forward it on

The poor are some of the worst offenders, living in cultures which despoil and deplete the environment for survival. So, let’s work on the poverty and cultural problems - both here and there. Fair enough?

we need to step up to the plate, admit we are doing a lousy job with the earth’s resources, and work to change it. hammering out details of “global climate change theory” is a bickering point and excuse for those who don’t want to take care of the earth or live a little “smaller.” environmental laws have not prevented the destruction of the rain forest, nor have they protected the oceans, lakes, streams, groundwater, wildlife, or the poor who are exposed to manure lagoons in north carolina, mexico, or romania… epic fail … and it’s time to do something about it.

OK. But you cannot change the world, so get involved locally and trust God. Being a “crunchy-con”, I tend not to be depressed or angry about things. I specifically distrust most modern “solutions”, which end up being worse than the problem. Remember the DDT ban? Millions of humans died and are still dying. Almost all of them were poor. This is an example of good intentions - which pave the road to…

 

[cathybramble]

Are you and I the ones doing this? I stay out of lakes, streams, rain forests and oceans. I leave nature alone, drive a 35mpg car, fervently recycle and complain about over-packaging of products. Am I still guilty? I just question and distrust the bleatings of hysterical and power-seeking individuals and groups. They all seek money and power.

my whole point is, we cannot ignore what we are doing to the planet and expect things to go well for the human race. global warming or not - i wish things didn’t have to be in a crisis situation before people sit up and take notice of how things are degrading.

Well, they don’t. And, what do you mean “we”?

“we” as in the human race.

By forcing you to do things that are subjective and arbitrary, that’s how. By fining and jailing you when you do not obediently follow their dictates.

i’d like to see some fining and jailing getting done on behalf of what humans are doing to the planet at such a bent-for-hell pace. then maybe people will take the problems seriously. oftentimes, the corporations that do the most harm are never held accountable.

The poor are some of the worst offenders, living in cultures which despoil and deplete the environment for survival. So, let’s work on the poverty and cultural problems - both here and there. Fair enough?

totally agree

OK. But you cannot change the world, so get involved locally and trust God. Being a “crunchy-con”, I tend not to be depressed or angry about things. I specifically distrust most modern “solutions”, which end up being worse than the problem. Remember the DDT ban? Millions of humans died and are still dying. Almost all of them were poor. This is an example of good intentions - which pave the road to…

LOL what’s a crunchy con???
passion is my gift, my own priest even tells me that. i feel compelled to speak about these things. i tell the truth and i’m not hysterical. my goal is not to control anyone except insofar as defending creation.

as for DDT, i have already mentioned this, but DDT causes miscarriages in people too. from the american journal of epidemiology:
“Our results support a growing number of epidemiologic studies showing that exposure to DDT and/or its metabolites is associated with increased risk of fetal losses in humans.”
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/162/8/709

as a pro-lifer, i find this completely unacceptable. i believe that banning this chemical was a good thing, and not a moment too soon, since it has been found to stay in the body for a long time. we need to find a better way. we can’t justify sacrificing the unborn for any reason in my opinion.

 

[Ender]

Now if we chose to ignore the science and do nothing then yes I think it could really be a moral issue.

Why is it so difficult to admit even the obvious? The disagreement is over what the science shows; there was never a question of ignoring it. Your implication that the anti-AGW side is ignoring the science is false. The implications that they are indifferent to man’s effect on the environment is false. The charge that they are indifferent to the poor is false. This is not an argument between people in white hats and people in black ones, there is a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the truth - nothing more.

But being that climate change is likely to effect the poor likely quite negatively putting money into climate change is basically helping the poor in the way. Helping prevent or at least lessen the potentially and likely damage to them. Also trillions seems a bit high.

I disagree with this assessment. You may argue all you like for your position - as I will for mine - but there is no basis for implying that I am somehow immoral for holding mine and disagreeing with you. You have been a tireless advocate for your position and have responded to scientific claims with scientific rebuttal … all well and good. This is a different debate: do you believe that those who disagree with you are committing a sin and, if not, where is the moral issue?

Ender

 

[po18guy]

my whole point is, we cannot ignore what we are doing to the planet and expect things to go well for the human race. global warming or not - i wish things didn’t have to be in a crisis situation before people sit up and take notice of how things are degrading.

Your worry and concern you will have to give to the Lord. Write letters, get involved, but don’t let this keep you awake at night! God is in charge.

“we” as in the human race.

I answer for my sins and you for yours. Many, many people from all walks of life are looking into the problem. It is not being ignored. What good is it to worry and fret over things we personally have zero control over? Example: I may have to confront bank robbers. They are a malignant force in this life. But, I don’t allow the fact of the bank robber’s existence to upset my daily life - it is too short. I can only pray for them.

i’d like to see some fining and jailing getting done on behalf of what humans are doing to the planet at such a bent-for-hell pace. then maybe people will take the problems seriously. oftentimes, the corporations that do the most harm are never held accountable.

Patience! It’s getting done, just not at your pace.

LOL what’s a crunchy con???

Granola conservative.

passion is my gift, my own priest even tells me that. i feel compelled to speak about these things. i tell the truth and i’m not hysterical. my goal is not to control anyone except insofar as defending creation.

Patience is the counterpoint to passion. Trust God in all things. His timetable is not ours, and I thank Him for that!

as for DDT, i have already mentioned this, but DDT causes miscarriages in people too. from the american journal of epidemiology:
“Our results support a growing number of epidemiologic studies showing that exposure to DDT and/or its metabolites is associated with increased risk of fetal losses in humans.”
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/162/8/709

as a pro-lifer, i find this completely unacceptable. i believe that banning this chemical was a good thing, and not a moment too soon, since it has been found to stay in the body for a long time. we need to find a better way. we can’t justify sacrificing the unborn for any reason in my opinion.

You have an excellent point. But, I find the death of millions from a mosquito bite to be unacceptable as well. Where is the clamor for a safe DDT replacement? There isn’t one, because humans, especially the poor ones, are considered to be a big problem for the earth. That is just sad.

 

[cathybramble]

Your worry and concern you will have to give to the Lord. Write letters, get involved, but don’t let this keep you awake at night! God is in charge.

maybe God is the one lighting the fire under my fanny it doesn’t keep me awake at night, but i do feel like i need to be active and vocal about these things. so i am

I answer for my sins and you for yours. Many, many people from all walks of life are looking into the problem. It is not being ignored. What good is it to worry and fret over things we personally have zero control over? Example: I may have to confront bank robbers. They are a malignant force in this life. But, I don’t allow the fact of the bank robber’s existence to upset my daily life - it is too short. I can only pray for them.

well… i sincerely believe that the day to day choices we make, have an impact. and i think people should be aware of that, cognizant that the choices they make affect others. believing you make a difference is the first step to accomplishing things, IMO. of course we all do them in our own ways, and one is not more right than another if everyone keeps their eye towards God’s will.

Patience! It’s getting done, just not at your pace.

:bounce: how about now? is it getting done yet?? haha

Granola conservative.

i’m going to have to use that sometime!!! it’s a pretty unique situation, being a pro-life catholic vegan. in terms of partisan politics, both sides love and hate me in equal measure

Patience is the counterpoint to passion. Trust God in all things. His timetable is not ours, and I thank Him for that!

You have an excellent point. But, I find the death of millions from a mosquito bite to be unacceptable as well. Where is the clamor for a safe DDT replacement? There isn’t one, because humans, especially the poor ones, are considered to be a big problem for the earth. That is just sad.

it is sad. this is a hopeful sign:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202103021.htm

 

[Matthew91]

To those who say climate change hurts the poor the most… I could not disagree more.

It is the poor who are being kept down by the climate change zealots.
Do you think they want third world countries to develop and industrialize thereby increasing the standard of living of their people? of course they don’t! they don’t like how china and india are becoming two of the worlds biggest polluters, and if they could stop them, i think the climate change fanatics would. And that would hurt the poor the most! the fact that third world countries are industrializing, gives the poor in these countries a chance to work in a better job and make their standard of living much better. when you take away a nations ability to industrialize, you trample on the poor in these countries by not allowing them to improve their lives.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I read a mildly interesting thing. Some scientist figured out that if we simply found a way to color our heat absorbing blacktop roads a heat reflecting white we would more than make up for all the greenhouse gas heat trapping (assuming it’s as much as some say).

So, maybe we simply need to substitute concrete for blacktop and forget about driving roller skates and using food for fuel and taxing the thunder out of our electricity and bringing poisonous mercury lightbulbs into our homes. Over time, the concrete contractors will tell you, concrete is cheaper anyway, and it can be brightened considerably with little difficulty.

 

[mapleoak]

well… i sincerely believe that the day to day choices we make, have an impact. and i think people should be aware of that, cognizant that the choices they make affect others.

It hasn’t been adequately demonstrated that the Earth’s changing climate adversely affects the poor as opposed to benefiting them. It also hasn’t been demonstrated that the poor are more affected than others. Further, it hasn’t been demonstrated that it is immoral to disagree on man’s impact on the climate nor illustrated how it is moral to divert resources away from helping the poor in concrete ways and reallocating them in an attempt to influence the weather for a speculated and inconclusive indirect effect that the poor might benefit from.

 

[4elise]

It hasn’t been adequately demonstrated that the Earth’s changing climate adversely affects the poor as opposed to benefiting them. It also hasn’t been demonstrated that the poor are more affected than others. Further, it hasn’t been demonstrated that it is immoral to disagree on man’s impact on the climate nor illustrated how it is moral to divert resources away from helping the poor in concrete ways and reallocating them in an attempt to influence the weather for a speculated and inconclusive indirect effect that the poor might benefit from.

I appreciate your position on diverting resources that might otherwise help the poor in concrete ways today — to address what you do not believe has been demonstrated to be more of a burden on the poor in the future. What concerete resources are you seeing diverted from the poor to adress climate change?