I think you bring a very sensible argument to the table and I agree that our society consumes far more then it should (it’s wasteful, gluttonous, and is stealing from those in poorer nations).
That said, if you disagree with a major finding of the United Nations IPCC that over-population is contributing to climate change, then should you really be supporting this institution’s agenda and enouraging people to subscribe to it? The Catechism of the Catholic church makes it clear that we can NEVER support an evil agenda with hopes of bringing about a positive end.
For example, I think the Obama administration is very wrong in it’s abortion policy, but I would NEVER vote for that party and campaign for them with the hopes that my positive influence might one day turn them away from abortion. Evil must always be opposed.
I just think this thread would be much better served if it was encouraging people to think of ways to mitigate “Human Over-Consumption” instead of “Climate Change”. This way, you could oppose human wastefulness and materialism (which I completely agree with) without supporting a scientific and political community that clearly is opposed to both of our Catholic beliefs on a very serious issue.
I do not support abortion, nor have I ever done so. I support reducing our killing and harming of people, whether that be from war, conflict, crime, abortion, or environmental problems. Of course, we sometimes have to choose the lesser of evils, but that does not mean we condone that lesser evil. As you said evil must always be opposed, whether it be greater evil or lesser evil.
RE our reasons for reducing our harm, I guess it doesn’t really matter why one reduces their pollution, including GHG emissions, as long as these are being reduced.
As a Carmelite (OCDS) I like to consider St. John of the Cross as being my favorite “environmentalist,” as he proposed “nada, nada, nada,” a rejection of all that is not God in the material, as well as spiritual realms (of spiritual comforts). If we really follow these saints and Jesus, then there would be no environmental problems at all. We’d be living in complete simplicity, and most of us would be living celibate lives of self-sacrifice.
However, knowing that we are very weak creatures and most of us find it hard being a saint, or even living like monks and nuns in monasteries dedicated to a life of poverty, I would propose that we at the least reduce, reuse, recycle & go on alt energy to whatever extent feasible, and try to find happiness and joy in less material/energy-intensive pursuits.
However, in America (as in the world) GHG emissions have been increasing and increasing – not decreasing at all, even tho there are plenty of off-the-shelf solutions that save us money without reducing our living standard or productivity that could reduce these emissions by at least 70% here in America. So something is very wrong with that picture – people on the whole are not reducing for whatever reasons they might have for reducing.
And it is not an abstract thing like “over-population” that is contributing to problems, robbing gas stations, being mean and cruel to family members, cheating at work and school, polluting the earth, etc. It is people that are doing those things. The focus some may have on “it’s over-population that’s to blame” sort of reminds me of “I’m not at fault, it’s other people.” And also, “I want my kids to have it all, so that means others should have less or no kids.”
The really hard work is to try and be good oneself.
I remember a Kung Fu episode where Carradine tells the master, “I want to end evil in the world.” The master answers back, “You can only hope to end evil in yourself.”
As Carmelites we are called to be good, and in that way help to bring goodness to the world. If I have failed, then my deepest apologies.
Let’s all look for harmless ways to solve our problems, including AGW.
, but let’s turn off lights not in use, etc.).
