If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don’t like threads involving hypothetical questions, there’s no forum rule that you must respond.
It could be that he/she does not DISlike the thread or topic, but is simply offering his/her opinion. Like I will do here: Global Warming is a gigantic hoax. The concrete reality that has been born into existance because of the created hoax of Global Warming is the empowerment of people who really really do seek to take away our choices of how we light our homes, what we drive, how large our families should be, what we eat - basically sticking their noses in our day to day affairs - all the while encouraging abortion and birth control because - after all! - we are nothing but dirty, nasty humans succling the life out of our virginal Mother Earth, as we are, of course, the cause Man Made Global Warming.

God Bless.
 
I’ll believe in climate change when i’m running the AC in winter or furnace in summer.
 
This can’t be answered since insufficient evidence has been introduced to demonstrate this “reality.”
 
The debate is not whether global warming is occurring, but rather what is causing the warming. Many scientists contend the change is merely a cyclical change. After all, much of the U.S. was once covered by glaciers which melted away with a global warming cycle millions of years ago.

The problem is that it has become a political issue, and for politicians, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. The Marxist left has used the issue as an excuse to squelch Capitalism and industry, while the greatest polluting countries in the world such as Russia and China continue business as usual.

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel shared his views on Global Warming:

*It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. * Link source
 
Thanks, Nate and also Bartolome Casas,

I am a Secular Carmelite and the topic I have to address today is St. Teresa’s FOUNDATIONS, Chapters 1 & 2, on “Salvation of Souls.” I have also been concerned for 22 years about the souls of those who refuse to accept what I communicate to them about ACC…long before it ever became a political issue (both political parties were bad on it back then).

In fact, there was virtually no one into this, except JPII and a few religious people. We formed the Illinois Interfaith Council on Climate Change. Now in Texas, I’ve tried to do something at my parish, but my priest is afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in the parish; at least he has allowed me to leave a pamphlet in the vestibule, “A Catholic Response to Climate Change,” in which I promote “The Little Way of Environmental Healing,” calling on people to do whatever tiny things they can to mitigate climate change.

Anyway, since my efforts have fallen completely flat, some years back I was about to give up and remain silent on the issue, just continuing to do my own small and large deeds to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, when that very week the Sunday reading was on how it is a sin when someone sees someone else doing wrong not to try and correct him or her. I can’t remember the verse, but I figured I must continue to inform people about ACC and the many solutions, most of them cost-effective.

My motives are simple – to help reduce harm to life on earth and to save souls. I’ve done a terrible terrible job on both front. I just alienate people further. I’m not a people person.

All I have is my prayers. And it is interesting that is how St. Teresa of Avila felt when hearing about all the souls being lost in the Indies for want of Christian instruction. She writes,
“I cried out to the Lord, begging Him that He give me the means to be able to do something to win some souls to His service, since the devil was carrying away so many, and that my prayer would do some good since I wasn’t able to do anything else. I was very envious of those who for love of our Lord were able to be engaged in winning souls, though they might suffer a thousand deaths. And thus it happens to me that when we read the lives of the saints that they converted souls, I feel much greater devotion, tenderness, and envy than over all the martyrdoms they suffered. This is the inclination the Lord has given me, for it seems to me that He prizes a soul that through our diligence and prayer we gain for Him, through His mercy, more than all the services we can render Him.”
I realize that contributing to ACC by not inflating one’s tires or failing to carry a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms, or a failing to bring reusable bags are not in and of themselves sins. But it seemed to me that the complete refusal to do anything at all over many years and decades, especially since JPII and BXVI have repeatedly called us to do so, could amount to some sin; and when such a huge portion of the population together is causing such terrible harm (since 2008 I’ve been made aware by a top NASA climate scientist that we could be headed for runaway warming and annihilation of all life on earth, if we continue a business-as-usual path), somehow this did amount to a sin, though I wasn’t sure if it was a serious or venial sin.

You have cleared that up now. I’ll continue to pray that people mitigate ACC, but I don’t have to be as concerned about their souls…a huge burden off my mind & heart.
I can’t tell whether ACC is a global fact, but… It certainly seems very true here in Texas. We have been in very bad drought for years, and in spite of a light snow earlier this week, it has already been in the 80s here.

I have buds on my roses despite the light snow, and it will be back in the 80s soon.

The drought and heat have caused terrible wild fires and due to burn bans I have not been able to barbeque in two years.

I am kind of thinking that denying climate change can be possibly ascribed to Texas’ economy being nearly entirely oil based.
 
Lol buying them or recycling should not be mandated, but they save money in some cases and are more efficient. I really don’t look into how environmentally friendly they actually are. Any idea how environmentally friendly the new led lights are? I believe those are the newest fad.
Good for you.
 
Fluorescent light bulbs are far more toxic in manufacture than regular light bulbs. Believing that recycling is a must and having these dangerous bulbs forced on us is just one more step in the direction of marxism, and we’ve already come a long way down that road.
We’ve been thru this CF bulb issue here on CAF before. The amount of mercury emitted in burning coal for electricity is much greater for incandescent bulbs than CF bulbs…and that difference is much greater than the mercury entailed if CF bulbs are not desposed of property.

That mercury issue is another pollution issue (among many) that would be addressed by many of the measures that also reduce GHGs and save money. It is a win-win-win situation to do the right thing environmentally, the least harmful things.

And pray tell, how is getting off the grid by generating one’s own energy or saving money from environmental measures going to lead to marxism?
 
Sorry, I also want to post about climate change itself…
Thanks for this, Littlebum. My experience at CAF is that the ACC skeptics cannot under any means at all be convinced ACC is happening. It is a total waste of time to even try and convince them. They just will not accept it, even if God Himself were to come speak directly to them about it…since they don’t accept even what the scientists and popes have been saying about it. It’s not a science issue, but an ideological issue, and they are totally convinced that if people seriously decide to mitigate ACC it will end up in a totalitarian regime and economic collapse. Recycling to them is the slippery road to such.

My question, therefore, was strictly about whether it is a sin to deny ACC (assuming it is real); and this was only for my own edification.

I, of course, feel very sorry for the tremendous human suffereing and loss of human life (and others of God’s creatures) well on into the future from ACC – perhaps even the untimely annihilation of all life on earth – but at least I’m somewhat relieved the denialists’ immortal souls are not as much in jeopardy as I had imagined.

I suppose at worst it might mean a longer stint in purgatory for the worst offenders (those who know ACC is happening, but work like dogs to pursuade others it is not happening)…but not spending their eternity in a much hotter place than a globally warmed world. That is a relief to me. Life is very precious, but our souls are even more precious.
 
IF the Church declares that Greenism is the new Word and ignoring it is a sin, THEN that is the day I leave.

This would constitute worship of the created, rather than the Creator. IF that’s the case, why not just be a pagan?
How about the 10 Commandments, and “Thou shalt not kill” – would that be cause for people to leave the Church (or leave staying in place, asleep in the pews)? That to me is a serious commandment, and if AGW is real, then we are indeed killing people well into the future (a portion of our CO2 emissions can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years).

I didn’t need 95% scientific certainty, and neither did JPII when he first called on us to mitigate AGW.

I felt really bad back in 1990 when I came to understand AGW was likely, 5 years before it reached 95% confidence in scientific studies. I started reducing our household GHGs through energy/resource efficiency/conservation and was surprised to find we could reduce by about one-third cost-effectively, saving us $1000s over the decades since, without lowering our living standard (even increasing it a bit), even tho I’d been willing to sacrifice. (I’m not counting our living within 1 to 2 miles of work, since we had been doing that already since the 1970s when there was an energy crunch, and we became aware of peak oil and entropy).

Then in 2002 we moved to Texas for new jobs, and were able to get onto Green Mountain’s 100% wind-generated electricity, and reduced our GHGs even further – at first we paid about $5 more per month, but now we are paying about $5 less per month, as the rates for dirty electricity have surpassed our wind-energy rates. So financially that was a break-even deal.

And then 3 weeks ago, after our old clonker was going to cost much more to fix than it was worth, we bought a Chevy Volt and have been driving solely on our wind-generated electricity. Now a Volt is very expensive…we paid some $42,000 for it, but I have figured we’ll be saving enough on driving the Volt that within 7 years it will make up the difference in what we would have paid for another car we were considering, and go on to save us more and more each year…assuming we live that long. If someone drives more than us (more than 5,000 miles a year), then they could make up the difference between a Volt and another car even faster.

We actually had money to buy the Volt bec we had always bought old cars for cash over the past 43 years of our marriage (10 cars for under $1000, 3 above that), and saved on our low driving, and on our many other environmental measures, and so this is the first car we bought on credit. We could have paid cash, but the car loan interest was much lower than on some of our other investment loans, so we’re paying off those other loans first, then will pay off the Volt loan.

So I feel pretty good that we are on the right track to reducing our GHGs. My husband is now talking about installing solar panels on our house.

We feel very good to be on this right and righteous path of reducing our harms to people and others of God’s creatures. We don’t feel bad or sad or economically harmed or oppressed, but increasingly free and able to do God’s will.

I just want to express, there is really no harm done in doing the EC (environmentally correct) thing…or at least harms are reduced. Please have no fear about communism or economic collapse (which may be more likely if we fail to mitigate environmental problems). Be not afraid. Do what is right and perfect, as our Father in Heaven does.
 
Excellent question!

To me, if man-made climate change is real and is killing or will kill thousands or millions of people, it would be a huge sin if it meets the test for a Mortal Sin.

To be a Mortal Sin, the person would have to KNOW that this climate change is real, but pretends NOT to know this for some selfish reason.

**Many of the people who are most vigorous in denying climate change have no scientific training and so cannot make an independent evaluation of the evidence. **

They are simply following the leadership of their political movement.

So, they would not be sinning.
I have advanced scientific training and do actual scientific research in a laboratory for a living. That doesn’t mean anything. I have no reason to even form an opinion on this matter. Neither do you. Very few people on this planet actually do scientific research ON THE CLIMATE. Anyone else who speaks on this is motivated purely by politics, and the people working ON THE CLIMATE are likely motivated largely by politics anyways.
 
How about the 10 Commandments, and “Thou shalt not kill” –

I just want to express, there is really no harm done in doing the EC (environmentally correct) thing…or at least harms are reduced. Please have no fear about communism or economic collapse (which may be more likely if we fail to mitigate environmental problems). Be not afraid. Do what is right and perfect, as our Father in Heaven does.
Of course there is harm.

The worship of the created rather than the Creator is harmful. The mandates of Caesar as he destroys EVEN OUR FREEDOM TO WORSHIP is harmful.

No one is stopping you or anyone from paying too much for a polluting ‘green’ vehicle, which you m stakenly believe is going to save the planet. It’s your money (for a while) so spend it as you will.

What they are doing is stopping the rest of us from enjoying the benefits of a free market that was the basis for our Constitution.
 
The debate is not whether global warming is occurring, but rather what is causing the warming. Many scientists contend the change is merely a cyclical change. After all, much of the U.S. was once covered by glaciers which melted away with a global warming cycle millions of years ago.

The problem is that it has become a political issue, and for politicians, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. The Marxist left has used the issue as an excuse to squelch Capitalism and industry, while the greatest polluting countries in the world such as Russia and China continue business as usual.

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel shared his views on Global Warming:

*It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. * Link source
Wow, what a great post… right on target, in my opinion.
 
Interesting topic. Let’s take the emotionalism of the specific issue out and discuss the general principle at work. How serious a sin is it to KNOW an action is wrong, but to continue to commit it and fail to warn other believers about it.

Answer: Quite serious. Probably mortal.

But back to the specific issue at hand, it gets complex. Who is the mortal sinner, the AGW “denier” who still drives his SUV through the drive through or the AGW alarmist who opposes fossil fuel exploration and drives up energy costs to the point where millions of the world’s poor cannot afford safe food refrigeration, transportation access to health care or access to resources that could make them economically self sufficient?

Each person must evaluate the situation and make decisions according to his own conscience on the matter. We each are obligated to take action against immorality. This particular issue simply isn’t a clear one in terms of identifying which side is the good guys and which one is the bad guys.
 
Lynn, I am curious how you did the Volt math. From what I have learned, it has about a 30 mile per day maximum electric only range. So you can save only 1 gallon of gas per day compared to a decent econo-car (I get 38mpg average in my 2002 Saturn SL). After that 30 miles, you just get conventional econo-car mileage, right? But you still pay something for electricity. Let’s say you are saving $3.00 per gallon of gas reduced compared to what you would have used in a 30mpg econocar. $3*365=$1,095 per year in savings.

You can buy nearly the same car in chevy Cruze Eco form for under $20,000 and get 42mpg highway. That’s a lot more than 7 years in payback time period.

That’s a lithium battery, isn’t it? Isn’t lithium a heavy metal? Know anything about the mining industry? At a minimum, a refined metal generates at least 2,000 pounds of toxic mining tailings for every 1 pound of refined product generated. If just 60# of the ~300# battery pack is a refined heavy metal, that’s 120,000# of toxic mining tailings lying around out there somewhere (probably third world) just to power your car. Makes you think, eh?

A suggestion: buy some wrenches and books and learn to rescue unloved econocars. Both my Saturns would be in the junkyard by now if owned by mechanic-paying owners. But since I adopted them as my hobby, I have 38mpg transportation and didn’t generate ANY toxic mining tailings to get it.

If your goal is to reduce your impact, the best route is almost always to use less rather than to buy more (whether it be solar panels, or LEDs or electric cars or whatnot). I think your goals are noble, even if I disagree with the level or urgency you assign it. Just beware of people marketing to you with smooth talk. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
 
Interesting topic. Let’s take the emotionalism of the specific issue out and discuss the general principle at work. How serious a sin is it to KNOW an action is wrong, but to continue to commit it and fail to warn other believers about it.

Answer: Quite serious. Probably mortal.

But back to the specific issue at hand, it gets complex. Who is the mortal sinner, the AGW “denier” who still drives his SUV through the drive through or the AGW alarmist who opposes fossil fuel exploration and drives up energy costs to the point where millions of the world’s poor cannot afford safe food refrigeration, transportation access to health care or access to resources that could make them economically self sufficient?

Each person must evaluate the situation and make decisions according to his own conscience on the matter. We each are obligated to take action against immorality. This particular issue simply isn’t a clear one in terms of identifying which side is the good guys and which one is the bad guys.
Don’t forget the requirement to put CORN into our gas tanks, which not only reduces our gas mileage but messes up our combustion engines while increasing the price of food worldwide!

:mad:
 
I think it appropriate to remember that after Fr. Maitre created what later became known as the “Big Bang Theory” of the universe’s origin (which is generally accepted now, but at the time was fiercely challenged by those who held to a “Steady State” theory of cosmology), the Pope had an audience with Fr. Maitre, who was a brilliant physicist in addition to being a Jesuit priest.

As the Big Bang theory aligns closely with much of scripture, the Pope was very excited and suggested that the Church should explore the possibility of incorporating the theory into its teachings. Fr. Maitre suggested, I think wisely, that theories can be later found to be unsupported by new evidence, and the Church should not incorporate unproven and changeable scientific theories into its doctrinal (or moral) teachings.

That would certainly seem to apply to the AGW theory of Global Warming. When I grew up in the 1970s, the great danger that was predicted by climate scientists was just the opposite - that we were entering into a new Ice Age. Evidence can be found to be inconclusive in the light of new evidence, scientists differ (even a majority of scientists in a particular field can be found to be wrong), and individual Catholics can hold or not hold the same position as certain climatologists do without fear of sin.
 
Of course there is harm.

The worship of the created rather than the Creator is harmful. …
Did Noah misunderstood God, and was supposed to gather all the species and his own family, then send them to their destruction (rather than save them), because not to destroy them means he was a “created things” worshiper, rather than a God-worshiper.

Of course saints do tell us we should hate the world, but I think what they mean is that we should not be attached to material things; surely they do not mean we should destroy materials things to the effect that we harm and kill people by starving them out, poisoning them, or impoverishing them by destroying their property.

Becoming an environmentalist is a way of becoming an ascetic and denying ownself the inordinate and disordered pleasures that our society (esp the media) tell us to indulge in.

But I’m not even asking or expecting people to become self-denying environmentalists – bec I know in our materialistic, hedonistic culture that call would go over like a lead balloon. People find it exceedingly hard to reduce their material possessions and pleasures even one iota. Even changing behavior, like bringing one’s own shopping bags, is quite difficult for most people.

All I’m asking (and every other environmentalist I know is asking) is that people do environmental things that are economically sensible that would save them money without reducing their living standards (and strive to change their behavior at no cost to themselves), and by that way also reduce their environmental harms to people and God’s creatures (on some of which we depend for our livelihood, such as food crops).

Since is it not a sin to kill people through environmental harms (as commentors here have made clear to me), then they don’t have to worry about their own culpability or going to hell. I would just hope that they would strive to do what is more and even most pleasing to God, rather than just the minimum requirements for getting into heaven.

So if they harm and kill people thru environmental harms, I’ll pray that people not harm others through environmental harms (but I don’t have to be as concerned about their souls, as I had thought, since their souls are not endangered by the harms they commit). And I’ll also pray for those people who are harmed (or whose loved ones are harmed) by environmental harms, that they do not become angry and hateful towards those that harm them and thereby fall into sin.

So I’m thinking the real danger of sin here is those who are harmed feeling anger and hatred for those who harm them.
 
Lynn, I am curious how you did the Volt math. From what I have learned, it has about a 30 mile per day maximum electric only range. So you can save only 1 gallon of gas per day compared to a decent econo-car (I get 38mpg average in my 2002 Saturn SL). After that 30 miles, you just get conventional econo-car mileage, right? But you still pay something for electricity. Let’s say you are saving $3.00 per gallon of gas reduced compared to what you would have used in a 30mpg econocar. $3*365=$1,095 per year in savings.

You can buy nearly the same car in chevy Cruze Eco form for under $20,000 and get 42mpg highway. That’s a lot more than 7 years in payback time period.

That’s a lithium battery, isn’t it? Isn’t lithium a heavy metal? Know anything about the mining industry? At a minimum, a refined metal generates at least 2,000 pounds of toxic mining tailings for every 1 pound of refined product generated. If just 60# of the ~300# battery pack is a refined heavy metal, that’s 120,000# of toxic mining tailings lying around out there somewhere (probably third world) just to power your car. Makes you think, eh?

A suggestion: buy some wrenches and books and learn to rescue unloved econocars. Both my Saturns would be in the junkyard by now if owned by mechanic-paying owners. But since I adopted them as my hobby, I have 38mpg transportation and didn’t generate ANY toxic mining tailings to get it.

If your goal is to reduce your impact, the best route is almost always to use less rather than to buy more (whether it be solar panels, or LEDs or electric cars or whatnot). I think your goals are noble, even if I disagree with the level or urgency you assign it. Just beware of people marketing to you with smooth talk. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Thanks for your comments. I figured the lithium might be bad, but didn’t look into it much. I guess if my electricity were fossil-fuel-based, then it might not even make environmental sense to get a Volt or Leaf. Since it is wind-generated, I just did a guessimate that overall it would be the environmental thing to do in buying an EV.

Since we almost never go on the highway, then we can’t get the highway mileage of, say, the Cruse (which is one of the cars we looked at); however, my husband wanted even more “luxury,” since this will be our last car and we’ve had old beater cars all our 43 years of married life. He is really happy with the Volt & thinks it’s a luxury car (we probably don’t know the difference, since we’ve never had one; I told him it’s just like a Jaguar, only better :)).

Yes we will save about $1100 per year – more if the cost of gas goes up. Our KWH charge is 12.7 cents, and the Volt’s 40 miles uses 9.6 KWH…we’re actually getting about 42 miles, since we are also hypermiling. And there is $7500 off our income tax next year. So that will make of the difference between the Volt and a car somewhat more luxurous than a Cruze within 7 years. We wanted to jump in now – not only was our clonker going to cost more than it was worth to fix, but with gas prices set to increase and the EV rebate going to expire on the Volt after 200,000 are sold, we thought the time was right.

Some 15 years ago I was seriously thinking of converting an ICE car to an EV (in which case we would have used lead acid batteries & would not have gotten the regenerative breaking), but was too busy & just didn’t have time to do it. The EV club told me it was easy, and they let me drive their EV conversion (a 77 Corolla) for a few minutes – it had a 20 mile range. The savings of a pure EV are tremendous…there’s hardly any repairs at all.

RE auto pollution, there is a lot of pollution from driving an ICE gasoline car, and this causes miscarriages, birth defects, and a number of health problems for the born. One of the emissions is dioxin. Just a few days ago the EPA released a 27 year delayed study about the non-cancer ill health effects of dioxin (which the gov and chem industries were trying to hide) – see epa.gov/dioxin

Now not everyone can afford a Volt, but they can find out ways to reduce their driving and their harm…if they are really serious about reducing their harm to living beings. There’s no law or sin against harming and killing people this way, but I for one feel compelled to reduce my harm and killing. You all have to make up your own minds about the situation.
 
I suppose that the question is not so much whether climate change is real, but also whether it is a good thing, or a bad thing, or neutral in its effects.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are generally beneficial to plant life, and of course plants are useful to people in many ways, particularly in producing the oxygen which people and animals need to survive.

It seems that atmospheric CO2 levels need to be at least above 150 ppm to avoid harming plant life, but below 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.

I’m certainly no expert on the issue, but the hype seems way out of proportion to the expected change in CO2 levels.

Here is an article in First Things magazine which explores the issue in a little more depth.

firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top