Global Climate Change and our Catholic Response

[4elise]

More on the issue of agriculture that was a good article 4elise posted. But it isn;t just a matter of warmer temperatures equals more crops. There are other factors to consider for instance less rain or even too much rain…and whether or even the type and quality of soil. And an interesting blog I read made a post about soil types

greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/climate-change-and-famine-ii-soil/

So while it is true that places like Canada and Siberia for instance might experience an increase in agricultural production do to warmer climates it is rather doubtful they could really make up for potential and likely decreases in certain other areas of the world.

And of course warmer weather could mean more crop pest problems as well.

So in other words it;s not all warm weather equals more food growth. Yes plants grow good in greenhouses. But in greenhouses they are typically are getting the right amount of water and are planted in good soil /soil medium.

As for the idea of a global cooling scare in the 1970’s it seems very few scientists were actually predicting long term global cooling. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ in fact looks like most were predicting warming!

climateprogress.org/2009/04/12/australia-southwest-global-warming-drought-wildfire/ Some stuff on Australia. As I understand it the southern part of the continent has been experiencing major drought. And I think the northern part has been getting too much rain.

As for lomburg I found this article to be interesting. thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/willful-idocy/
This site apparently documents some of his errors. lomborg-errors.dk/

Issues of the most vulnerable areas not being able to raise enough food may be compounded by the increase of diseases like malaria, dengue fever, West Nile virus redorbit.com/news/health/882909/never_mind_the_polar_bears_global_warming_could_give_you/index.html

 

[yellowbicycle]

I can’t believe no one’s mentioned this already!
You’ve all heard that Vatican city is working very, very hard to be the first nation to be completely energy independent, right (and eve export the energy it produces to Italy)
businessmirror.com.ph/component/content/article/52-technology/9232-pope-pursues-heavenly-power-with-plant-harnessing-sun-.html

 

[4elise]

I can’t believe no one’s mentioned this already!
You’ve all heard that Vatican city is working very, very hard to be the first nation to be completely energy independent, right (and eve export the energy it produces to Italy)
businessmirror.com.ph/component/content/article/52-technology/9232-pope-pursues-heavenly-power-with-plant-harnessing-sun-.html

Thanks for this!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Again, uninformed opinion with nothing to back it up. Not very useful, I’m afraid.

Satan’s greatest achievement is in convincing people he does not exist.

Climate hysteria will HURT THE POOR. That is its end goal. I do believe that, as Catholics, we are required to help those less fortunate, though not by crushing all those who dare to achieve financial success.

 

[4elise]

Climate hysteria will HURT THE POOR. That is its end goal. I do believe that, as Catholics, we are required to help those less fortunate, though not by crushing all those who dare to achieve financial success.

From what I’ve read and understand from the original post the US Conference of Catholic Bishops support efforts to stem global climate change exactly because the impact of global climate change will have the greatest impact on the poor, and our responsibility as Catholics is to act in a way that will protect the most vulnerable.

The argument against action seems to go back and forth in your post – this will crush the poor and crush ‘those who dare to achieve financial success’ - I believe many will find ways to do well with this change of focus - so I don’t agree that the end goal of efforts to stem global climate change is to hurt the poor, to the contrary - it is with their needs at the forefront in the post by the USCCB.

The hysteria - to use your word - of those who see see some type of conspiracy in the efforts to stem global climate change I believe is unjustified.

 

[JimG]

From what I’ve read and understand from the original post the US Conference of Catholic Bishops support efforts to stem global climate change exactly because the impact of global climate change will have the greatest impact on the poor, and our responsibility as Catholics is to act in a way that will protect the most vulnerable.

From whjat I’ve read on the USCCB website, the bishops are concerned that any efforts directed toward the reduction of global warming should be so designed as to not unduly burden the poor. In reality, many people including especially the poor, will be burdened by such things as carbon taxes. The poor most of all because thay have the least ability to adjust their lifestyles. Even such things as the use of ethanol as an alternate fuel diverts renewable food sources from food into fuel, therby raising food prices.

The USCCB as such, has of course no expertise whatever on whether or to what extent global warming is actually occurring or to what extent it is attributable to human activity.

 

[4elise]

From whjat I’ve read on the USCCB website, the bishops are concerned that any efforts directed toward the reduction of global warming should be so designed as to not unduly burden the poor. In reality, many people including especially the poor, will be burdened by such things as carbon taxes. The poor most of all because thay have the least ability to adjust their lifestyles. Even such things as the use of ethanol as an alternate fuel diverts renewable food sources from food into fuel, therby raising food prices.

The USCCB as such, has of course no expertise whatever on whether or to what extent global warming is actually occurring or to what extent it is attributable to human activity.

I agree with you that everything should be done with the needs of the poor at the forefront and from what I understand the impact of global climate change will have the greatest impact on them - therefore those of us who can make changes should. All efforts should be measured - as you suggest - ethanol from corn perhaps not the best idea! - but that doesn’t minimize the idea that other sources should be found and developed.

I believe the USCCB has drawn it’s conclusions based upon a review of information just as all of us do, (I don’t imagine that they have just come up with this on their own) they of course have the calling to always represent the response the faithful are called to respond with - our actions can and do make a difference.

 

[JimG]

Keep in mind that the USCCB is a large bureaucracy. Not every document that is posted or linked on its website has been approved by the bishops in general session.

 

[4elise]

Keep in mind that the USCCB is a large bureaucracy. Not every document that is posted or linked on its website has been approved by the bishops in general session.

I can see that big organizations are challenged this way - however this is more than just a linked document - the USCCB is a partner in the The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change (CCCC) that was formed in 2006 and it is my understanding that the CCCC is working to “encourages a thoughtful dialogue about ways the Catholic community can respond to climate change.”

So, it isn’t that they are calling us to respond to the dialogue but respond to climate change as I understand it. As individuals we can make changes that can and do make a difference.

As Catholics we need to stay engaged in the dialogue and speak out for the poor - I don’t think it is effective to react skeptically - but to see how changes can be made keeping their needs at the heart.

 

[ChristineMac]

Really?? Myself, the Pope, and the Bishops think there is global warming, and we are all against all those things you listed. Or, are we…

Shouldn’t we remember that the issue of ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is not one of Faith or Morals, therefore, the Bishops are really only expressing their opinion? Unfortunately, to me it seems, that they have allowed themselves to be swayed by the media on this one.

 

[4elise]

Shouldn’t we remember that the issue of ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is not one of Faith or Morals, therefore, the Bishops are really only expressing their opinion? Unfortunately, to me it seems, that they have allowed themselves to be swayed by the media on this one.

In reading the position from the USCCB I believe they are stating that the result of climate change is a moral issue as the result will have an undue burden on the poor. I don’t believe it is the media that has swayed the position because I seldom hear the media taking the position of support for the most vulnerable.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The Japanese have been doing this for years and with great success, both environmentally and economically. In Japan all cars are required to be inspected every one or two years. The fee for the inspection, which is not chump change, rises the longer you own your car and depending on the model of the car. In the long run (actually, in the rather short run), it soon becomes evident that it is more to your advantage, and much cheaper, to buy a new car every 4 to 5 years. The government used this ruse to compel Japanese to support Japanese automobile companies, to keep workers employed and to avoid imported cars. You very seldom see “clunkers” on the road in Japan. Then again, you don’t often see unemployed automobile workers either.

Huge Japanophile though I am, it is a teeny nation with VERY limited resources. What makes sense for them does not make sense for the USA.

I reject even the concept of government ‘bribes’ at all levels, no matter how well-meaning they may seem on the surface. That’s only a few short steps to telling people how many children they ‘may’ have, and when you supplant God with Caesar that always, always happens. The outcome is inevitable.

And as someone already pointed out, climate-change hysteria does not fall under the banner of Papal infallibility.

 

[kennewickmike]

Huge Japanophile though I am, it is a teeny nation with VERY limited resources. What makes sense for them does not make sense for the USA.

I reject even the concept of government ‘bribes’ at all levels, no matter how well-meaning they may seem on the surface. That’s only a few short steps to telling people how many children they ‘may’ have, and when you supplant God with Caesar that always, always happens. The outcome is inevitable.

And as someone already pointed out, climate-change hysteria does not fall under the banner of Papal infallibility.

Is there no middle ground that can be achieved on Global Warming? Do you think that maybe people with good intentions could be worried about the environment or is it all one big conspiracy?

Lets say we are wrong. Would living in a world that we were not dependent on foreign oil and that was a lot cleaner than it is now be bad? Could we not do this without some “Caesar” taking over the world, starving the poor, and ruling with a iron fist? I have to agree with Tsuwano on seeing some form of documentation on this approach by you. What have you based this on?

 

[JimG]

Is there no middle ground that can be achieved on Global Warming? Do you think that maybe people with good intentions could be worried about the environment or is it all one big conspiracy?

Lets say we are wrong. Would living in a world that we were not dependent on foreign oil and that was a lot cleaner than it is now be bad? Could we not do this without some “Caesar” taking over the world, starving the poor, and ruling with a iron fist? I have to agree with Tsuwano on seeing some form of documentation on this approach by you. What have you based this on?

The world essentially runs on oil now,
and oil and gas and coal are cheap. There are several ways to limit our dependence on foreign oil. One of them is to develop our own proven oil reserves, as well as those of Canada and those offshore the U.S.

But the same lobbyists who warn of dependence on foreign oil will oppose that. Because the idea is to quit using oil entirely. And the easiest way to get people to quit using cheap products and start using expensive substitutes is to tax the cheap ones to death. That hurts everybody, the poor in particular.

Not only that, it risks widening the global recession and turning it into a global depression. That doesn’t help anyone either.

 

[kennewickmike]

The world essentially runs on oil now,
and oil and gas and coal are cheap. There are several ways to limit our dependence on foreign oil. One of them is to develop our own proven oil reserves, as well as those of Canada and those offshore the U.S.

But the same lobbyists who warn of dependence on foreign oil will oppose that. Because the idea is to quit using oil entirely. And the easiest way to get people to quit using cheap products and start using expensive substitutes is to tax the cheap ones to death. That hurts everybody, the poor in particular.

Not only that, it risks widening the global recession and turning it into a global depression. That doesn’t help anyone either.

I would agree with your take on the present situation. I do not think we can just flip a switch and become green. It is going to take time and work

I still think that the world is going to go green with us or without us and it would be in our best interest to get in front of that by developing new technologies while using old ones. By old ones I mean nuclear. I know it is a hot topic but I see it as being the cleanest technology we have right now.

 

[JimG]

I would agree with your take on the present situation. I do not think we can just flip a switch and become green. It is going to take time and work

I still think that the world is going to go green with us or without us and it would be in our best interest to get in front of that by developing new technologies while using old ones. By old ones I mean nuclear. I know it is a hot topic but I see it as being the cleanest technology we have right now.

I agree we need to be building a lot more nuclear generating plants.

But do you think China and poorer countries are going to abandon coal-fired generating plants? They are building them at a record rate. It seems to me that “going green” is mainly a marketing slogan.

 

[kennewickmike]

I agree we need to be building a lot more nuclear generating plants.

But do you think China and poorer countries are going to abandon coal-fired generating plants? They are building them at a record rate. It seems to me that “going green” is mainly a marketing slogan.

I agree with what PO18GUY posted earlier “We will answer to God for how we took care of the earth. Not for how India or China or even the US took care of it. That is beyond our control. When the Lord returns, will He find any faith, or only worry?”

Also if we get ahead of the curve and come up with these new technologies, those countries will be shutting down those plants in 10 to 20 years in order to buy onto what we developed. You seen the Olympics, there air is already a disaster.

 

[JimG]

But “taking care of the earth” is not under the control of any single nation. The air over California doesn’t stay there. Neither does the air over China. The earth, if it needs saving, can only be saved by concerted effort.

Looking down from outer space, one hardly notices the humans. I wonder if it is a little bit exaggerated to think that we as persons, nations or groups of nations, can have any effect whatsoever the earth as a planet, which has been taking care of itself for millions of years.

And when the next ice age hits, are we all expected to join in to fight that as well?

I consult the bible in vain to find God’s prohibition on carbon dioxide.

 

[mapleoak]

Not to derail the thread, but that’s a real possibility; they’re kicking around legislation to give a federal gov. rebate for trading in a clunker when you buy a new “efficient” car in congress as we speak.

Seems like a good idea on the surface, but I’ve got a11 year old car that’s very serviceable relatively efficient, and mechanically tip-top, a 99 Lumina. If I traded it in on a new car, this perfectly good old one goes to the crusher, when it could have been given or sold cheap to someone who had no transportation otherwise. Big dilemma for me, if a 2 or 3K rebate was offered by the feds in addition to the bargains that are coming from the failing auto companies.

We don’t have hardly any public transportation options here in the detroit metro area, so people need cars.

Anyway, it’s not such a big step from offering rebates to simply banning (or better yet, in their view, taxing into oblivion) older, less efficient clunkers. Good way to force public transportation on the populace too…take away the only cars they can afford, then they NEED a government run, horribly inefficient, public transportation system.

In my case, my daily driver is 1980 rabbit. Picked it up a number of years ago for 500 bucks. Extremely reliable, easy and cheap to maintain, and 42+ miles/gallon (what does that say for progress in the last 30 years?). I wouldn’t really care much for a dictatorship forcing me into hefty new car payments and having to junk a perfectly good vehicle which is probably more efficient than what they want me to drive anyway.

 

[kennewickmike]

But “taking care of the earth” is not under the control of any single nation. The air over California doesn’t stay there. Neither does the air over China. The earth, if it needs saving, can only be saved by concerted effort.

Looking down from outer space, one hardly notices the humans. I wonder if it is a little bit exaggerated to think that we as persons, nations or groups of nations, can have any effect whatsoever the earth as a planet, which has been taking care of itself for millions of years.

And when the next ice age hits, are we all expected to join in to fight that as well?

I consult the bible in vain to find God’s prohibition on carbon dioxide.

I still go back to the Olympics as a good example how we can have an effect on the environment. The air quality there was horrible. Same can be said for Mexico City and other places around the Earth.

I agree that this problem is going to take a concerted effort. My point has always been that I would like to see us out front in that effort instead of us trailing behind.