Global Climate Change and our Catholic Response

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Please show me in detail where the Pope supports a totalitarian regime that dictates who is able to buy what, by the grace of the government.

And also who lives and who dies? This is the ultimate goal of climate hysteria: more power to Caesar. It has nothing to do with Catholic stewardship of resources or even good old-fashioned American tightwaddery.

 

[4elise]

Put it this way. I have good reason to fear driving my car would be made out of reach of affordability for me through, emmissions tests, gas tax hikes, etc. I can see an Obama administration proposing no clunker laws which would be very immoral. Without my car my and my wife’s lives practically stop. No way for her to get to her doctors, no way for me to go job hunting, no way for us to go to our church on sunday with seriously jeopardising my wife’s health. The proposals to stop global warming are going to affect cars first. Ill fight to the death to keep mine.

First I want to tell you that you and your wife have my prayers - it sounds like you are really going through challenging times. Aren’t we blessed that we have faith, how much more difficult to face challenges without faith.

If I were in your shoes and thought my car would be taken away I would be upset too.
I haven’t seen anything however that supports that fear. I went looking about clunker issues, and the only thing I could find was a reference to a ‘cash for clunkers’ that would be voluntary - not mandatory - give someone $5000 toward a new car - but that idea has been scraped because of the state of the economy -

I think the Bishops are talking exactly about your kind of situation, seeking the good at the risk of the vulnerable should never be advocated by anyone.

 

[aspawloski4th]

First I want to tell you that you and your wife have my prayers - it sounds like you are really going through challenging times. Aren’t we blessed that we have faith, how much more difficult to face challenges without faith.

If I were in your shoes and thought my car would be taken away I would be upset too.
I haven’t seen anything however that supports that fear. I went looking about clunker issues, and the only thing I could find was a reference to a ‘cash for clunkers’ that would be voluntary - not mandatory - give someone $5000 toward a new car - but that idea has been scraped because of the state of the economy -

I think the Bishops are talking exactly about your kind of situation, seeking the good at the risk of the vulnerable should never be advocated by anyone.

Now that I can agree with. By the way I always read between the lines, because my life experience is what is between the lines is more apt to happen than the actual lines.

 

[Calliso]

greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/ Most of the conspiracy theories in general are dealt with here. Though I donlt think the population control one is. But I am sure that is yet another silly one which very very few scientists advocate.

As for the other planets are warming argument that is dealt with pretty well here skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm But most of them seem to neither be warming or cooling as far as we can tell. And remember we have relatively little data on other planets and we have lots on our own. And while for instance with Pluto is does appear to just be a cycle…how does that show anything about our own planet? The point is is we have looked at the evidence and the evidence doesn’;t seem to be saying the recent warming can be totally explained naturally.

Also predicting climate isn;t the same as predicting weather. But this might help explain things. skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm

But the idea that we donlt have documentation is just silly. Now does anyone have any actual evidence to show me?

 

[Tsuwano]

Please show me in detail where the Pope supports a totalitarian regime that dictates who is able to buy what, by the grace of the government.

And also who lives and who dies? This is the ultimate goal of climate hysteria: more power to Caesar. It has nothing to do with Catholic stewardship of resources or even good old-fashioned American tightwaddery.

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

 

[Tsuwano]

greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/ Most of the conspiracy theories in general are dealt with here. Though I donlt think the population control one is. But I am sure that is yet another silly one which very very few scientists advocate.

As for the other planets are warming argument that is dealt with pretty well here skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm But most of them seem to neither be warming or cooling as far as we can tell. And remember we have relatively little data on other planets and we have lots on our own. And while for instance with Pluto is does appear to just be a cycle…how does that show anything about our own planet? The point is is we have looked at the evidence and the evidence doesn’;t seem to be saying the recent warming can be totally explained naturally.

Also predicting climate isn;t the same as predicting weather. But this might help explain things. skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm

But the idea that we donlt have documentation is just silly. Now does anyone have any actual evidence to show me?

Thank you. I have found this helpful.

 

[4elise]

Now that I can agree with. By the way I always read between the lines, because my life experience is what is between the lines is more apt to happen than the actual lines.

So my friend, I think we have found common ground !

I understand also that life experience always influences how we take in information and what we do with it. I had offered the original post from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to invite us to consider what we each can do - you obviously can’t change cars at this time because you need it to care for your wife, and provide for your family, and I don’t believe anyone is ever going to ask you to, and if they did I’d be right there with you advocating on your behalf as I am sure everyone here would. When our kids were young, my husband had lost his job for 18 months - we certainly had a clunker, it was all we could afford and today I drive a ‘hand me down’ — it’s little - but certainly not fashionable!

Beyond this, are you at all open to the possibility that (1) climate change is real and (2) if so - people’s actions have contributed to it?

 

[4elise]

An invitation…

There are other posts out there on ‘global warming’ that really bring out strong discussions…

Since this is a Catholic forum I would love to have a respectful discussion with some of the people who feel so strongly that it is:

1. not happening or
2. may be happening but human action has nothing to do with it therefore nothing we do can change the situation

lets keep the respectful tone that is appropriate for people of faith

 

[Calliso]

An invitation…

There are other posts out there on ‘global warming’ that really bring out strong discussions…

Since this is a Catholic forum I would love to have a respectful discussion with some of the people who feel so strongly that it is:

1. not happening or
2. may be happening but human action has nothing to do with it therefore nothing we do can change the situation

lets keep the respectful tone that is appropriate for people of faith

Agreed I will try better to behave!

 

[po18guy]

I think our Catholic response is to not panic, and to be good stewards of this earth. This requires prudential judgment - a rare commodity in our age. I have lived through the scare of “The Coming Ice Age”. This was the title of a very popular book in 1971. Dire predictions all round. Many scientists supported that conclusion, as well. Two points to ponder:

1. Warmer temperatures lead to increased food production. Food surpluses lead to increased donation to needy countries. Hard to see how this hurts the poor. Much buzz about “greenhouse gases”. But, what grows in a “greenhouse”? Food.
2. Suppose we decide to address this legislatively. What good is it to legislate ourselves back into the 1800s, while we ignore the immense (and growing) pollution of China and India? Unless all nations comply, and science is divided on the whole issue, whipping only ourselves is not the solution - it only assuages guilt.

Behind the mask of global warming, a whole lot of power is being grabbed, and money is being made - and not necessarily by those who give a rip about the earth.

 

[Newbie2]

Put it this way. I have good reason to fear driving my car would be made out of reach of affordability for me through, emmissions tests, gas tax hikes, etc. I can see an Obama administration proposing no clunker laws which would be very immoral. Without my car my and my wife’s lives practically stop. No way for her to get to her doctors, no way for me to go job hunting, no way for us to go to our church on sunday with seriously jeopardising my wife’s health. The proposals to stop global warming are going to affect cars first. Ill fight to the death to keep mine.

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.

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

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.

 

[aspawloski4th]

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.

I have a 1996 Dodge Intrepid with 112,000 miles on it. It’s an ornery car but it gets me where I need to go. Im Unemployed with no savings and my wife is on disability. Most of my wife’s doctors in the Grand Rapids area are on East Paris where the closest bus to there is maybe a good 3 or 4 miles away which with her arthraitis and back problems is a distance that could nearly kill her especially in the dead of winter, so the car is very important to have. Back in January when the car had a major problem when the rach and pinion unit nearly came off, I had a full week with out the car. Doctor appointments were missed, We missed Mass, Taking the bus to work made work take an extra hour and a half out of my day , which made me fit to be tied. Life becomes very troublesome with no car. If the Earth warms a dregree or two, on account of me avoiding all that hassle and misery so be it! I cant imagine what I would of done with no way to the hospital over the years with my 34 kidneystones, oh yes Id have a bunch of amulence bills I cant afford or the taxis would of made a killing off of me. My need is cheap readily availble transportation, if I don’t have it I can’t get on with life, there is no 2 ways about it. As long as the radically envirmentalist liberal Democratic party is in power I have to have that stuff in the back of my mind ready to come to the forefront.

 

[4elise]

Agreed I will try better to behave!

I think you are doing just fine!

 

[4elise]

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.

From what I can read about any proposal about a clunker discussion is that it is always voluntary - and given the impact on the people who could least afford it - would have to be… I think that speculation about forced clunker issues only feed into peoples fears, and may keep us from thinking of ways we can work together

 

[4elise]

I think our Catholic response is to not panic, and to be good stewards of this earth. This requires prudential judgment - a rare commodity in our age. I have lived through the scare of “The Coming Ice Age”. This was the title of a very popular book in 1971. Dire predictions all round. Many scientists supported that conclusion, as well. Two points to ponder:

1. Warmer temperatures lead to increased food production. Food surpluses lead to increased donation to needy countries. Hard to see how this hurts the poor. Much buzz about “greenhouse gases”. But, what grows in a “greenhouse”? Food.

From what I’ve read in many places it is the most vulnerable that will be impacted by the changes in the ability to grow food - this one just the result of one study “A new study highlights the threat to food production posed by climate change. And scientists say regions that already face food security issues are among the most vulnerable.” voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-01-voa21.cfm?CFID=190673008&CFTOKEN=14293321&jsessionid=66303d3f964347cf7a56722e1ee6b5c76617 -

1. Suppose we decide to address this legislatively. What good is it to legislate ourselves back into the 1800s, while we ignore the immense (and growing) pollution of China and India? Unless all nations comply, and science is divided on the whole issue, whipping only ourselves is not the solution - it only assuages guilt.

Behind the mask of global warming, a whole lot of power is being grabbed, and money is being made - and not necessarily by those who give a rip about the earth.

From what I understand no one is proposing moving back, but forward in a new direction, new sources of energy, solar and wind power and developing a better national power grid - and as for money being made I believe that is at the heart of a capitalist, market based, entrepreneurial economy - the US can lead the way and show China and India how effective, and economically beneficial these changes are.

 

[po18guy]

From what I’ve read in many places it is the most vulnerable that will be impacted by the changes in the ability to grow food - this one just the result of one study “A new study highlights the threat to food production posed by climate change. And scientists say regions that already face food security issues are among the most vulnerable.” voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-01-voa21.cfm?CFID=190673008&CFTOKEN=14293321&jsessionid=66303d3f964347cf7a56722e1ee6b5c76617 -

Your concerns are almost verbatim from those worried about in 1970, except the fear is now warming rather than cooling. Ditto for many people and some of the scientists, who believed in cooling then and warming now. In spite of the near hysterical drumbeat from the for-profit media as well as certain scientists who are currently on the warming side, many (including some environmentalists) are now beginning to question what we have been fed. See Bjorn Lomborg and others.

From what I understand no one is proposing moving back, but forward in a new direction, new sources of energy, solar and wind power and developing a better national power grid - and as for money being made I believe that is at the heart of a capitalist, market based, entrepreneurial economy - the US can lead the way and show China and India how effective, and economically beneficial these changes are.

What is proposed does not matter. What will actually happen is of concern. In the 1960s, government began a “war on poverty” and has spent trillions. It has succeeded only in producing a more resistant strain of poverty. Intent versus impact. Shouldn’t we determine if there is actually a certifiable and repeatable problem before we spend a billion trillion (that could feed the poor) on chasing the dream of new energy?

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?

 

[Newbie2]

From what I can read about any proposal about a clunker discussion is that it is always voluntary - and given the impact on the people who could least afford it - would have to be… I think that speculation about forced clunker issues only feed into peoples fears, and may keep us from thinking of ways we can work together

Yeah, for now.

In case you haven’t noticed who’s in office and which party is in power, they’re not really concerned about working together. May the Almighty help us if the government ends up owning more than 50% stock in the big 3. These bozos can’t run a government where they have unlimited money without going into debt, let alone a REAL business.

But that is another subject.

We as Catholic Christians have to be aware of our neighbor in need. Despite promises to the contrary, the Goverment will not take care of them. There is plenthy of money in Federal, State and Local government to take care of the poverty that exists in this country, if not for the waste and corruption

And that’s where we should all be concerned, whether or not one buys into man-made global warming, the pols will use the concept to scare us into giving up more money and power to the government, and the poor will still be poor.

 

[Calliso]

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/

 

[4elise]

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?

This is a very powerful statement - and if I am interpreting it correctly - you are saying that WE are responsible to act. WE are responsible to take care of the earth.

I couldn’t agree more with this - and in fact this personal responsibility is very much why I’ve made the choice to move to a vegan diet - as I’ve learned about the savings in resources, on a plant based diet - for me - it fits with what I believe our faith is calling me to / resources - impact on environment - use of water, etc. etc…

Regarding government - I still have hope that the voice of people can be heard, and responded to for this and all other issues - I know there are issues and times when it seems like we are not moving in the right direction, but I still think we have to work to have our voices heard.