Global Climate Change and our Catholic Response

[geezerbob]

For those who think we haven’t been doing anything for the environment, I’d like to offer a few things I’ve seen in my lifetime for your consideration because the younger ones among you inherited a country in pretty good shape compared to what it was.

It wasn’t so terribly long ago that everybody, meaning individuals, businesses, and governmental entities, dumped their waste on the ground or in the closest stream. Rivers have caught fire in Cleveland and Chicago that I know of, and there were probably more. Cities dumped raw sewage in the rivers for a hundred or more years. Garbage from the northeast was routinely loaded on scows and dumped in the Atlantic, some of which washed back up on the beaches. I have personally seen hundreds of gallons of paint containing lead and oil dumped into the St. Johns River by navy personnel. Smokestacks spewed vile black smoke into the air constantly. Charleston, Georgetown and Jacksonville smelled so bad that people visiting for the first time would get sick and throw up. Used motor oil was routinely put on dirt roads to hold down the dust. The Great Lakes were practically sterile from all the pollution and a heavy gray haze hung over most major cities, either from industry or from tens of thousands of people burning coal or wood for heat and cooking.

Despite all that, most of us managed to live through it and, in the last 50 to 60 years, managed to clean things up considerably. People can now actually swim in the lakes in Cleveland and Chicago. Virtually all sewage is either treated in large facilities or digested in septic tanks. Our waterways and lakes are clean enough that the fish have returned and are thriving, and most of the toxic land sites are now being safely used for other purposes. Most cities no longer have the black clouds hanging over them, although a temperature inversion sometimes causes it to happen temporarily. Isn’t Mother Nature, with a little help from us humans, wonderful?

Vegetation, be it trees, lawns, or farm plants, take in carbon dioxide and, when they die and decompose, give it off. I seriously doubt that what we humans add to the carbon dioxide has any significant effect on the total, but think we should continue in our efforts to clean things up even further, but without going overboard and making the environment our god as some have done. If we switch to hydrogen fuel, I won’t be around to see it but the Al Gores of the future will be screaming about the effects of the extra water vapor in the air (which affects the climate much more that the current villain). It runs in cycles, both nature and people. Rachel Carlson and her ilk convinced the world that we were going into another ice age and that, too, was only about 50 years ago.

Moderation in all things, folks, and the world will take care of itself and us.

 

[kennewickmike]

I have not read an extremist idea on this thread yet in my opinion. Nor have I read anything about anyone making the environment their religion.

 

[uther]

One Catholic response.

If you examine closely what the USCCB and the Holy Father have said and written you will nowhere find an endorsement of the global warming theory. You will notice that they re-iterate the teaching of Christ regarding care for the poor and displaced, and given that the global warming theory has gained credence in the halls of government in many parts of the world, including now in the U.S. they want to emphasize that stewardship of the environment is Catholic teaching as well as economic policies that do not punish the poor in any part of the world.

I would argue that the direct command of Christ takes precedence for Catholics. But we need to talk about methodology and ideology. In that vein it should be stated right off the top that Catholic teaching is to care for the poor but it doesn’t include coercing our neighbor to care for the poor.

If you take the models of global warming and follow the path its proponents have laid out you will find that the models not only cite man as the effective cause, although a small part of the entire mix, they also show an alarming timeline. In fact, those most familiar with the models will tell us when we ask that it is almost too late to have an positive effect, and the scale of pull-back from carbon emissions is so large that it must be world-wide to have the desired effect. That was the logic behind Kyoto.

But let us assume that it is still possible to “save the planet.” What is required? Essentially it is a global roll-back of the industrial revolution. Personally, if we were to re-set the clock to a pastoral existence, I wouldn’t mind losing the modern lifestyle and its pace. The transition, however, would be anarchy and deadly to great numbers of people. Remember, we don’t have a lot of time and great numbers of people who have no idea where their food comes from. Would that scenario fit Catholic doctrine? No.

Geo-politically is such a thing possible? Well, first the governments of the world would have to be convinced that disaster is immanent in order to take drastic action. That has been Al Gore’s job for the past decade, trying to convince the world that disaster is just around the corner. Europe has gone a long way toward capitulation, but their culture has been shaped by many centuries of being brow-beaten by kings, dictators and communist totalitarians. They tend to put their heads down more quickly. Serfdom is in their psyche. Besides which, in recent decades they have been trying to contracept and abort themselves out of existence anyway.

It would be a harder sell in China and Russia, both of which are just feeling the lifestyle effects of open trade. To fold that tent now would require some serious persuasion and would also require overcoming the innate paranoia of both nations over the possibility of being open to invasion. But without them the point is moot because they are the biggest contributors of CO2 and growing.

The Islamic oil producing nations would see this as an attempt by the infidels (that’s us) to conquer them by depriving them of their only source of wealth.

So what are the options? A global one world government to coerce the globe into acquiescence? That would theoretically work, but it would require incredible speed in its execution and massive bloodshed. Does that conform to Catholic teaching? No.

(More)

 

[uther]

The only other option is for America to go it alone in the endeavor. But the models tell us that it would not be enough, nor soon enough. Or would it? We have seen the world wide economic tidal wave associated with the financial near-collapse in the U.S. The fact of the matter is that there is already in place an American empire, an economic hegemony, such that when America gets an economic sniffle, much of the world gets a cough. So, if the economy of the U.S. were to, as is necessary, go directly and quickly to a low CO2 economy, the radical drop in lifestyle in the U.S. would be felt world-wide, causing many economies to crash or disappear entirely, having a similar CO2 effect across much of the globe. There would be massive poverty and starvation as an inevitable result both in the U.S. and around the world. Does that sound like Catholic teaching? No.

There are several issues that have come up which require a quick look. In general, based on the global warming models, the solution right now, in America or anywhere in the world requires massive coercion on the part of government. Some have pointed out the socialist association with this global warming theory. Quite frankly, in the U.S. it is only the far left that considers such government action acceptable for the sake of the planet or the “common good.” The president in his campaign clearly stated his intention to bankrupt the coal industry by onerous, impossible standards and costs on the coal-fired electrical generating plants. That would also drive people into poverty due to high home electrical costs, never mind the coal miners. Catholic teaching? I don’t think so.

Also predominantly in the radical left camp are the population control zealots. Their ideology as well as many of the most radical environmentalists, is that mankind is a blight on the planet, an interloper as it were. They are the core of the misanthropes on the left, and in their worldview contraception and abortion should be mandatory. Is that Catholic teaching? No.

On the same subject, CO2 has been declared a pollutant by the EPA. That is what we exhale. Everything that we do produces carbon emissions. Our human existence produces carbon emissions. Such a ruling, in a carbon based world is either sheer lunacy or misanthropy of the most insidious kind. And it is scientifically insane. Plants and trees use CO2 and produce oxygen that we breathe. That is a symbiotic relationship if there ever was one. Haven’t we been told that the Amazon rain forest is the lungs of the world? Is it “green” to want to starve plants? Or Catholic doctrine? No.

So indirectly, the Catholic Church is against the program required to combat global warming and win against the CO2 emissions.

Recently, “global warming” has been dropped and replaced in popular speak by “climate change.” It means the same thing to the hard-core believers but seems more palatable to the public. In the strictest sense I would agree completely. There is climate change. In fact there has always been climate change, long before mankind was on the planet. Just ask the dinosaurs what the climate used to be like, or the wooly Mammoths buried in the ice.

Recent numbers and observations? The planet is on a downward temperature trend. This is confirmed. The ice-packs on both poles are growing rapidly, particularly this year. Why? Has Kyoto been in effect long enough worldwide? It hasn’t been either. Let’s look at another theory, which unfortunately for our self-image, leaves mankind out of the equation entirely.

First, respecting CO2, Al Gore’s own charts disprove his case and the EPA. CO2 follows the rise in temperature. It does not precede it. The cause-effect is totally reversed. The archeological record, ice-cores and historical examination show us a close correlation between rises in earth mean temperatures, the consequent carbon level rise and solar activity. The cutting edge of science right now is showing that this recent quiet period of the sun has dramatically affected the climate of North America and the temperatures world-wide. Some are speculating that we are at the end of a solar cycle. They won’t know for sure until more data is in. There are other factors, such as the irregular earth orbit, that in conjunction with a quiet sun cause even further cooling of the planet, some of which are predictable and some of which are not. The right combination produces a mini ice-age, such as we have seen before. European history records it.

About once in ten thousand years we get a confluence of factors such that Jupiter’s gravity in combination with other planets aligned properly pull earth’s orbit further than usual from the sun, and if the sun is in a quiet period at the same time we get a great ice-age. Where I live on the northern side of the Great Lakes is a long ridge-line of low hills that are made of sand and gravel, a remnant of the leading edge of the last glacial period. This past winter was consistently colder for longer periods than I have seen in many years. It was also dryer, as the jet-stream stayed further south, dropping record snow-falls in much of the U.S.

So is there a strong political ideology at work? Absolutely. The president at various times recently has spoken of freeing science from the constraints of ideology. Would that it were true. He is blindly committed, as are most of the radical left, to the concept of command and control in the economy and forcing the people away from traditional CO2 producing energy, regardless of the cost to the economy or freedom. This conforms so well to their political worldview that they will not give up the global warming/climate change program even when faced with the facts. They will impoverish America as well as much of the world on the basis of an out-dated theory that furthers their political goals. Does that conform to Catholic doctrine? No.

 

[RodBrett]

Rather than provide a link - this is the content of the PDF from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops web site titled:** Global Climate Change and our Catholic Response ** - in additional posts I will list additional content - without links - to information that I have found on this site and the site of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Changesites.

I believe as Catholics we are called to care deeply about this issue and do what we can to make lasting changes for the good.

**What is the Issue? **
Climate change is at the center of the environmental challenges facing our nation and the world. Some of the impacts of climate change include increased temperatures, rising sea levels, and changes in rainfall that contribute to more frequent and severe floods and droughts. People living in poverty—both at home and abroad—contribute least to climate change but they are likely to suffer its worst consequences with
few resources to adapt and respond. The effects of climate change—increasingly limited access to water, reduced crop yields, more widespread disease, increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters, and conflict over declining resources—are making the lives of the world’s poorest people even more precarious.

**Why Should People of Faith Care? **
The Catholic Church brings a distinct perspective to the debate about climate change
by lifting up the moral dimensions of this issue and the needs of the most vulnerable among us. As Catholics our faith calls us to care for all of God’s creation, especially the ‘least of these’ (Mt 25:40). Of particular concern to the Church is how climate change and the response to it will affect poor and vulnerable people here at home and around the world.

In 2001, the United States bishops adopted a statement on climate change, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, and declared that, “At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both the ‘human environment’ and the natural environment.”

Protecting God’s Creation and “the least of these” requires urgent, wise and bold action.
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have continually emphasized the moral dimensions of climate change and our responsibility to care for creation. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), through its Environmental Justice Program, has been inviting and assisting Catholics to take this challenge to heart. The EJP program was Global Climate Change and our Catholic Response created in 1993 to motivate Catholics to a deeper reverence and respect for God’s creation, and to
encourage Catholics to address environmental problems, particularly as they affect poor and vulnerable people.

Through its international humanitarian relief and development programs, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is helping to strengthen the ability of the most vulnerable communities in the developing world to respond to and prepare for the effects of climate change. CRS provides education and training to poor communities that reduce their vulnerability to climate impacts, such as floods, droughts and storms.

The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change (CCCC), a partnership of national Catholic organizations formed in 2006 that includes the USCCB and CRS, encourages a more thoughtful dialogue about ways the Catholic community can respond to climate change. CCCC invites Catholics to participate in a new initiative offering a distinctively Catholic perspective on global climate change. This initiative offers Catholics the opportunity to stand with people living in poverty, in our nation and around the world, who
are facing the worst impacts of climate change.

What Response is Needed?
A central moral measure of our response to climate change is how it touches poor and vulnerable people. Poor people cannot bear an undue burden of the global adjustments needed to address climate change.

As the U.S. Congress considers climate legislation, Catholics Confront Global Poverty invites Catholics to advocate for policies that reduce the impact of climate change on people living in poverty. Well-designed climate change policies can help both reduce the severity of climate change and protect the most vulnerable by:

• Creating new and necessary resources to assist poor and adversely affected communities in adapting to and easing the effects of global climate change in the U.S. and in the most vulnerable developing countries;
• Ensuring that the most useful technology is promptly made available to people in
the most vulnerable developing countries to help them adapt to the effects of climate change (adaptation) and reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions
(mitigation); and
• Promoting the participation of local communities in programs for adapting to climate
change and easing its effects.

**How Does Climate Change Affect Real People? **

Teshome, a farmer in Bedossa Betella, Ethiopia, grows carrots to support his family. Drought, one effect of climate change, has affected Teshome’s family and countless others.

One of the effects of global climate change affecting many countries has been severe
weather, including both flooding and drought. In Ethiopia, the past several decades have seen repeated droughts, which have often led to famine due to farmers’ inability to grow food during droughts. In some parts of Ethiopia, CRS has been able to help small farmers such as Teshome Bekele, pictured above, adapt to the effects of climate change. CRS’s project helps farmers diversify their incomes, introducing fruit, vegetables, spices and fodder to add to the crops they have grown for decades. With drought becoming more frequent due to climate change, CRS hopes that growing a variety of crops less dependent on water will allow the farmers to continue to support themselves and their families.

But in most other parts of the country and world, farmers haven’t been so lucky. Experts agree that poor people are likely to be the worst hit by the impacts of climate change.
The United Nations reports that by 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St., NE, Washington, DC 20017

Catholic Relief Services
228 W. Lexington St., Baltimore, MD 21201

 

[RodBrett]

This worries me very much when the Vatican issues what they call the Eleven Commandments realting to the environment. They are not permitted to enact such commandments when they are totally out of step with the reality of Global warming.
The reality of Global warming and climate change is that this planet is going through a natural cycle of change. Refer to the ocean warmth, Temperatures in the ocean are rising because of volcanic activity in the ocean and cracks in the tectonic plates covering the mantle. In the trenches the average temperatuire is 297 degrees celsius, whilst under the arctic the Temperature in that Trench is 500 degrees celsius. Greenland is green again and the arctic ice is melting and as it has done through various cycles over millions of years. They blamed warming affecting the Great barrier reef in Australia, strange that this part has now regrown in its full majesty. Farmers pollute the reef with herbicides used to spray their fields and the resultant flows from the rivers into the ocean and this is not global warming causing this.
Please do not wear your worries about what we are doing to the climate in its pure majesty natural activity through Volcanoes, earth quakes, tsunamis and cyclonic activity cause these changes in the climate and the global warming is in a natural cycle. There is major scientific evidence about this.
All of a sudden we are made to feel sinful because the Vatican says so. They should come into the real world especially the 21st century and stop living in the past.

God Bless them anyway

 

[4elise]

One Catholic response.

If you examine closely what the USCCB and the Holy Father have said and written you will nowhere find an endorsement of the global warming theory. You will notice that they re-iterate the teaching of Christ regarding care for the poor and displaced, and given that the global warming theory has gained credence in the halls of government in many parts of the world, including now in the U.S. they want to emphasize that stewardship of the environment is Catholic teaching as well as economic policies that do not punish the poor in any part of the world.

I would argue that the direct command of Christ takes precedence for Catholics. But we need to talk about methodology and ideology. In that vein it should be stated right off the top that Catholic teaching is to care for the poor but it doesn’t include coercing our neighbor to care for the poor.

I am grateful for your very thoughtful response - and I completely agree that it is the needs of the poor the Bishops are calling us to keep at the front of all discussions and considerations - however, I don’t think ‘coercing our neighbor’ means ignoring what the community response should be - and our role to advocate for a community response that can have the most impact to protect the most vulnerable.

If you take the models of global warming and follow the path its proponents have laid out you will find that the models not only cite man as the effective cause, although a small part of the entire mix, they also show an alarming timeline. In fact, those most familiar with the models will tell us when we ask that it is almost too late to have an positive effect, and the scale of pull-back from carbon emissions is so large that it must be world-wide to have the desired effect. That was the logic behind Kyoto.

But let us assume that it is still possible to “save the planet.” What is required? Essentially it is a global roll-back of the industrial revolution. Personally, if we were to re-set the clock to a pastoral existence, I wouldn’t mind losing the modern lifestyle and its pace. The transition, however, would be anarchy and deadly to great numbers of people. Remember, we don’t have a lot of time and great numbers of people who have no idea where their food comes from. Would that scenario fit Catholic doctrine? No.

Like you, stepping back a bit to a slower paced life does sound good - and there may be some who are suggesting a roll-back to a lifestyle pre-industrial revolution - but I understand that many more are suggesting the answer lies in taking some leaps toward to a future where energy is produced primarily through wind and solar -

Geo-politically is such a thing possible? Well, first the governments of the world would have to be convinced that disaster is immanent in order to take drastic action. That has been Al Gore’s job for the past decade, trying to convince the world that disaster is just around the corner. Europe has gone a long way toward capitulation, but their culture has been shaped by many centuries of being brow-beaten by kings, dictators and communist totalitarians. They tend to put their heads down more quickly. Serfdom is in their psyche. Besides which, in recent decades they have been trying to contracept and abort themselves out of existence anyway.

It would be a harder sell in China and Russia, both of which are just feeling the lifestyle effects of open trade. To fold that tent now would require some serious persuasion and would also require overcoming the innate paranoia of both nations over the possibility of being open to invasion. But without them the point is moot because they are the biggest contributors of CO2 and growing.

The Islamic oil producing nations would see this as an attempt by the infidels (that’s us) to conquer them by depriving them of their only source of wealth.

So what are the options? A global one world government to coerce the globe into acquiescence? That would theoretically work, but it would require incredible speed in its execution and massive bloodshed. Does that conform to Catholic teaching? No.

(More)

Looking at the different world governments and the response of their people based upon their relationships may be a valid way to project their response, but I haven’t read anywhere where someone has advocated a violent takeover of the world to initiate a way to save it. The unique personality of and relationship of the people of the US and our Government give us a chance to lead to a more viable choice… we can lead, show the economic benefits - others will follow.

 

[4elise]

The only other option is for America to go it alone in the endeavor. But the models tell us that it would not be enough, nor soon enough. Or would it? We have seen the world wide economic tidal wave associated with the financial near-collapse in the U.S. The fact of the matter is that there is already in place an American empire, an economic hegemony, such that when America gets an economic sniffle, much of the world gets a cough. So, if the economy of the U.S. were to, as is necessary, go directly and quickly to a low CO2 economy, the radical drop in lifestyle in the U.S. would be felt world-wide, causing many economies to crash or disappear entirely, having a similar CO2 effect across much of the globe. There would be massive poverty and starvation as an inevitable result both in the U.S. and around the world. Does that sound like Catholic teaching? No.

As you say in your previous post, Europe is already taking the steps - while you have considered their response is based upon a ‘serf’-mindset - they are taking steps non the less. I think many consider that the changes could actually lead to an improved lifestyle in the US, and as you say when we get a sniffle - the world gets a cold - when the US shows the way to economic growth through these changes others will follow. The Catholic response is I believe to ensure that the all changes keep the needs of the poor and vulnerable at the heart of changes - Catholic teaching? Yes.

There are several issues that have come up which require a quick look. In general, based on the global warming models, the solution right now, in America or anywhere in the world requires massive coercion on the part of government.

I see - what the USCCB has put forward - is to ensure that any changes that are recommended are to keep the needs of the poor at the heart of the discussion - so any ‘massive coercion on the part of government’ that doesn’t keep the needs of the poor into consideration I believe we are called to speak against.

Some have pointed out the socialist association with this global warming theory. Quite frankly, in the U.S. it is only the far left that considers such government action acceptable for the sake of the planet or the “common good.” The president in his campaign clearly stated his intention to bankrupt the coal industry by onerous, impossible standards and costs on the coal-fired electrical generating plants. That would also drive people into poverty due to high home electrical costs, never mind the coal miners. Catholic teaching? I don’t think so.

I have read some of the discussions on coal and certainly see that the US doesn’t yet have a viable way to shift to another power source - I don’t think that should keep us from making moves in this direction now - again, advocating for the people who need to keep their home electric bills and shifting work for miners can be where the voice of the faithful can weigh in on this discussion - there is a middle ground… this is where I think the Catholic teaching calls us to speak out.

Also predominantly in the radical left camp are the population control zealots. Their ideology as well as many of the most radical environmentalists, is that mankind is a blight on the planet, an interloper as it were. They are the core of the misanthropes on the left, and in their worldview contraception and abortion should be mandatory. Is that Catholic teaching? No.

You are certainly right - the Catholic teaching is most certainly PRO-LIFE!
I understand however that our Church teaching does not promote unlimited procreation either - responsible parenthood requires that parents have considered their resources and utilize NFP to work with the Creator for a healthy family. As for the zealots - and their motivation - that can’t be ours.

On the same subject, CO2 has been declared a pollutant by the EPA. That is what we exhale. Everything that we do produces carbon emissions. Our human existence produces carbon emissions. Such a ruling, in a carbon based world is either sheer lunacy or misanthropy of the most insidious kind. And it is scientifically insane. Plants and trees use CO2 and produce oxygen that we breathe. That is a symbiotic relationship if there ever was one. Haven’t we been told that the Amazon rain forest is the lungs of the world? Is it “green” to want to starve plants? Or Catholic doctrine? No.

So indirectly, the Catholic Church is against the program required to combat global warming and win against the CO2 emissions.

What I’ve read indicates that the EPA’s finding doesn’t say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -as you said it is a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that has caused alarm.

The EPA’s ruling stated that higher concentrations today are the “unambiguous result of human emissions.” Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases “are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years,”

Recently, “global warming” has been dropped and replaced in popular speak by “climate change.” It means the same thing to the hard-core believers but seems more palatable to the public.

What’s in a name right? — when the issue is discussed by many who haven’t done as much reading as you obviously have – ‘global warming’ will often bring the response - ‘I’d like it to be a bit warmer’ - ‘if it gets warmer we will have a longer growing season’ — the change to ‘climate change’ I believe more clearly describes the issues - warmer for some / colder for others / longer growing season for some / inability to grow anything for others /
(more)

 

[4elise]

(cont.)

In the strictest sense I would agree completely. There is climate change. In fact there has always been climate change, long before mankind was on the planet. Just ask the dinosaurs what the climate used to be like, or the wooly Mammoths buried in the ice.

Recent numbers and observations? The planet is on a downward temperature trend. This is confirmed. The ice-packs on both poles are growing rapidly, particularly this year. Why? Has Kyoto been in effect long enough worldwide? It hasn’t been either. Let’s look at another theory, which unfortunately for our self-image, leaves mankind out of the equation entirely.

First, respecting CO2, Al Gore’s own charts disprove his case and the EPA. CO2 follows the rise in temperature. It does not precede it. The cause-effect is totally reversed. The archeological record, ice-cores and historical examination show us a close correlation between rises in earth mean temperatures, the consequent carbon level rise and solar activity. The cutting edge of science right now is showing that this recent quiet period of the sun has dramatically affected the climate of North America and the temperatures world-wide. Some are speculating that we are at the end of a solar cycle. They won’t know for sure until more data is in. There are other factors, such as the irregular earth orbit, that in conjunction with a quiet sun cause even further cooling of the planet, some of which are predictable and some of which are not. The right combination produces a mini ice-age, such as we have seen before. European history records it.

About once in ten thousand years we get a confluence of factors such that Jupiter’s gravity in combination with other planets aligned properly pull earth’s orbit further than usual from the sun, and if the sun is in a quiet period at the same time we get a great ice-age. Where I live on the northern side of the Great Lakes is a long ridge-line of low hills that are made of sand and gravel, a remnant of the leading edge of the last glacial period. This past winter was consistently colder for longer periods than I have seen in many years. It was also dryer, as the jet-stream stayed further south, dropping record snow-falls in much of the U.S.

So is there a strong political ideology at work? Absolutely. The president at various times recently has spoken of freeing science from the constraints of ideology. Would that it were true. He is blindly committed, as are most of the radical left, to the concept of command and control in the economy and forcing the people away from traditional CO2 producing energy, regardless of the cost to the economy or freedom. This conforms so well to their political worldview that they will not give up the global warming/climate change program even when faced with the facts. They will impoverish America as well as much of the world on the basis of an out-dated theory that furthers their political goals. Does that conform to Catholic doctrine? No.

I think there exists a political ideology on both sides of the science - and perhaps we all only read and believe that which confirms our own existing beliefs - I think we both agree that we are called to advocate for the poor and most vulnerable - perhaps the faithful on both sides of this issue we will be able to ‘pull’ toward the center that will both move us forward without the risks to the poor.

 

[4elise]

This worries me very much when the Vatican issues what they call the Eleven Commandments realting to the environment. They are not permitted to enact such commandments when they are totally out of step with the reality of Global warming.

What I’ve found (that I think you are referring to) the Church is speaking of social sin in a modern world - and indicates that there are seven social sins - I think it was the media that labeled it ‘the eleventh commandment’

The seven social sins are:

1. "Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

The reality of Global warming and climate change is that this planet is going through a natural cycle of change. Refer to the ocean warmth, Temperatures in the ocean are rising because of volcanic activity in the ocean and cracks in the tectonic plates covering the mantle. In the trenches the average temperatuire is 297 degrees celsius, whilst under the arctic the Temperature in that Trench is 500 degrees celsius. Greenland is green again and the arctic ice is melting and as it has done through various cycles over millions of years. They blamed warming affecting the Great barrier reef in Australia, strange that this part has now regrown in its full majesty. Farmers pollute the reef with herbicides used to spray their fields and the resultant flows from the rivers into the ocean and this is not global warming causing this.
Please do not wear your worries about what we are doing to the climate in its pure majesty natural activity through Volcanoes, earth quakes, tsunamis and cyclonic activity cause these changes in the climate and the global warming is in a natural cycle. There is major scientific evidence about this.
All of a sudden we are made to feel sinful because the Vatican says so. They should come into the real world especially the 21st century and stop living in the past.

God Bless them anyway

Some have concluded otherwise regarding global climate change - but the Church’s response seems to be that we keep the needs of the most vulnerable at the heart of all discussions and considerations. From what I’ve read and understand the impact of the effects of global climate change will have the greatest impact on the poor and so I believe we are called to do something about it as individuals and as a community.

 

[4elise]

For those who think we haven’t been doing anything for the environment, I’d like to offer a few things I’ve seen in my lifetime for your consideration because the younger ones among you inherited a country in pretty good shape compared to what it was.

It wasn’t so terribly long ago that everybody, meaning individuals, businesses, and governmental entities, dumped their waste on the ground or in the closest stream. Rivers have caught fire in Cleveland and Chicago that I know of, and there were probably more. Cities dumped raw sewage in the rivers for a hundred or more years. Garbage from the northeast was routinely loaded on scows and dumped in the Atlantic, some of which washed back up on the beaches. I have personally seen hundreds of gallons of paint containing lead and oil dumped into the St. Johns River by navy personnel. Smokestacks spewed vile black smoke into the air constantly. Charleston, Georgetown and Jacksonville smelled so bad that people visiting for the first time would get sick and throw up. Used motor oil was routinely put on dirt roads to hold down the dust. The Great Lakes were practically sterile from all the pollution and a heavy gray haze hung over most major cities, either from industry or from tens of thousands of people burning coal or wood for heat and cooking.

Despite all that, most of us managed to live through it and, in the last 50 to 60 years, managed to clean things up considerably. People can now actually swim in the lakes in Cleveland and Chicago. Virtually all sewage is either treated in large facilities or digested in septic tanks. Our waterways and lakes are clean enough that the fish have returned and are thriving, and most of the toxic land sites are now being safely used for other purposes. Most cities no longer have the black clouds hanging over them, although a temperature inversion sometimes causes it to happen temporarily. Isn’t Mother Nature, with a little help from us humans, wonderful?

Vegetation, be it trees, lawns, or farm plants, take in carbon dioxide and, when they die and decompose, give it off. I seriously doubt that what we humans add to the carbon dioxide has any significant effect on the total, but think we should continue in our efforts to clean things up even further, but without going overboard and making the environment our god as some have done. If we switch to hydrogen fuel, I won’t be around to see it but the Al Gores of the future will be screaming about the effects of the extra water vapor in the air (which affects the climate much more that the current villain). It runs in cycles, both nature and people. Rachel Carlson and her ilk convinced the world that we were going into another ice age and that, too, was only about 50 years ago.

Moderation in all things, folks, and the world will take care of itself and us.

I re-read your post and boy do I agree with you that somethings have certainly improved! I grew up in Southern California and we had green smog here that they wouldn’t let us play outside! Like snow days, but ours were smog days!

From what I understand the reason we have had improvements here has been the imposition of regulation on removing lead from fuel and the use of catalytic converters here in California - I am sure that there were many opposed to these regulations, as potentially too burdensome to business -

The dumping of raw sewage I am sure didn’t stop because one day the companies thought ‘hey this is a bad idea’ but rather that there were regulations put in place that made them find other ways to get rid of waste - and again I am sure that there were people who thought it would be too great a burden on business

As you say we should continue in our efforts to clean things up even further, and I don’t know what you would consider going overboard.

I believe we need to continue to advocate for policy changes that will continue to make a difference as the ones in the past 50 years have… this is such evidence that when people working together with the common good in mind can and do make a difference.

‘Rachel Carlson and her ilk’ are among those responsible for a lot of the positive changes you noted - and as people of faith we can continue to speak for ways to care for the world and I do agree moderation will ensure that the needs of all - in particular - those of the poor will always be considered.