Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change

[Ridgerunner]

By the way, China is the biggest CO2 producer in the world at 27%. After the first top 20 producing countries China producers more than ALL OTHER remaining nations combined. The US is number 2 at 20%. Seems like we both need to work on this but the question is of course, how?

Maybe China and the U.S.need to work on energy use. Undoubtedly efficiency in all things is good.

But we need to recognize that energy use is an indicator of production. Those places that rely on the power of human or animal muscle for, say, food production, don’t produce much food per capita. Want to produce a lot of food? Takes a lot of energy. It takes a huge amount of energy to produce steel or copper or glass, and then more energy to shape and assemble them into products, and still more energy to get the products where the consumers are. It’s interesting to watch programs where some guy makes a samurai sword or a bowie knife, using a forge and muscle power. It’s interesting, and the guys have a lot of admirable skill and the products look neat. But their productivity is terrible. It takes them days to do it, and they don’t even make the steel to begin with or mine the coal in the forge, and they didn’t make the forge, either. Industrial production is the substitution of fuel energy for muscle energy, and it can make perhaps 10,000 bowie knives in the time it would take for muscle power to make one.

We don’t all need a bowie knife, but we do need or benefit from a lot of products that are intensely energy-consuming to make.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If I had a 40 foot yacht, and could afford to do it, I would not hesitate to take it out for a solo run. Nor would I hesitate to fly in a lear jet to San Diego just to surf for a day. Somebody got paid to make those things, and somebody gets paid to maintain them, and somebody gets paid to drill for the oil, and somebody gets paid to refine it, on and on and on.

Now, if I had resources of that magnitude, I would also feel obliged to be very generous with my wealth. But I would not feel guilty about using resources that are plentiful.

 

[Brendan]

He doesn’t have a private jet.

He flies on Alitalia airlines.

Correct, there is not a specific jet nor is it owned by the Vatican. But whatever jet he flies on is dedicated to his exclusive use.

Neither you nor I could go to the Alitalia website and purchase a ticket on that same flight. So, in that sense, the jet is private.

Now there are certainly Just reasons why this is so, but the statement is still factually true.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Maybe China and the U.S.need to work on energy use. Undoubtedly efficiency in all things is good.

But we need to recognize that energy use is an indicator of production. Those places that rely on the power of human or animal muscle for, say, food production, don’t produce much food per capita. Want to produce a lot of food? Takes a lot of energy. It takes a huge amount of energy to produce steel or copper or glass, and then more energy to shape and assemble them into products, and still more energy to get the products where the consumers are. It’s interesting to watch programs where some guy makes a samurai sword or a bowie knife, using a forge and muscle power. It’s interesting, and the guys have a lot of admirable skill and the products look neat. But their productivity is terrible. It takes them days to do it, and they don’t even make the steel to begin with or mine the coal in the forge, and they didn’t make the forge, either. Industrial production is the substitution of fuel energy for muscle energy, and it can make perhaps 10,000 bowie knives in the time it would take for muscle power to make one.

We don’t all need a bowie knife, but we do need or benefit from a lot of products that are intensely energy-consuming to make.

Before comparing climate change mitigation with reverting to a pre-industrial economy, you have to show that pre-industrial economy is indeed the necessary consequence of climate change mitigation. Otherwise this is just a straw man argument.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Before comparing climate change mitigation with reverting to a pre-industrial economy, you have to show that pre-industrial economy is indeed the necessary consequence of climate change mitigation. Otherwise this is just a straw man argument.

Can a straw man be killed by a straw man? I did not compare “climate change mitigation” with reverting to a pre-industrial economy. I was merely saying that energy use can be an indicator of productivity, and generally is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Somebody got paid to make those things, and somebody gets paid to maintain them, and somebody gets paid to drill for the oil, and somebody gets paid to refine it, on and on and on.

I think you over-estimate the good that is done for those workers compared to the loss of the non-renewable resources you would use up and the harm to the people who will be affected eventually by the degradation of their environment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Can a straw man be killed by a straw man? I did not compare “climate change mitigation” with reverting to a pre-industrial economy. I was merely saying that energy use can be an indicator of productivity, and generally is.

You certainly did present a pre-industrial economy in response to kingston1’s question about climate change mitigation. You mean you just decided to talk about drastically lower energy use and a pre-industrial economy as a non-sequitur?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You certainly did present a pre-industrial economy in response to kingston1’s question about climate change mitigation. You mean you just decided to talk about drastically lower energy use and a pre-industrial economy as a non-sequitur?

Nice attempt to revive your straw man. But we can stipulate that you believe the above, even though I didn’t say it.

I did not “present a pre-industrial economy”. I simply pointed out that energy use is often (usually) an indicator of productivity, and we should take that into consideration in considering whether China or the U.S. should reduce utilization of energy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nice attempt to revive your straw man. But we can stipulate that you believe the above, even though I didn’t say it.

I did not “present a pre-industrial economy”. I simply pointed out that energy use is often (usually) an indicator of productivity, and we should take that into consideration in considering whether China or the U.S. should reduce utilization of energy.

Perhaps I should re-quote that post of yours, so that we know exactly what it was that was not supposed to be the presentation of a pre-industrial economy:

Ridgerunner:

Maybe China and the U.S.need to work on energy use. Undoubtedly efficiency in all things is good.

But we need to recognize that energy use is an indicator of production. Those places that rely on the power of human or animal muscle for, say, food production, don’t produce much food per capita. Want to produce a lot of food? Takes a lot of energy. It takes a huge amount of energy to produce steel or copper or glass, and then more energy to shape and assemble them into products, and still more energy to get the products where the consumers are. It’s interesting to watch programs where some guy makes a samurai sword or a bowie knife, using a forge and muscle power. It’s interesting, and the guys have a lot of admirable skill and the products look neat. But their productivity is terrible. It takes them days to do it, and they don’t even make the steel to begin with or mine the coal in the forge, and they didn’t make the forge, either. Industrial production is the substitution of fuel energy for muscle energy, and it can make perhaps 10,000 bowie knives in the time it would take for muscle power to make one.

We don’t all need a bowie knife, but we do need or benefit from a lot of products that are intensely energy-consuming to make.

And we should also quote what you were responding to:

kingston1:

By the way, China is the biggest CO2 producer in the world at 27%. After the first top 20 producing countries China producers more than ALL OTHER remaining nations combined. The US is number 2 at 20%. Seems like we both need to work on this but the question is of course, how?

So, kingston1 suggested that both the US and China need to work on reducing CO2 (for climate change mitigation). That’s reducing CO2, not reducing energy. kingston1 made no reference to energy in what you quoted. So it would seem your response of “But we need to recognize that energy use is an indicator of production” is telling kingston1 that we cannot reduce CO2 without reducing energy. And how much of an energy reduction? That is shown in what you say next, where you describe in great detail the poor productivity of producing goods with next to no energy (name removed by moderator)ut, and more importantly, without the use of a modern industrial economy. That is certainly the very definition of a pre-industrial economy. You described it. You linked it to CO2 reduction by using it to answer a question about CO2 reduction.

If you did not intend to link your descriptions to CO2 reduction, and it was just a non-sequitur, and not any kind of criticism of climate change mitigation through CO2 emissions reduction, then just say so and I will gladly admit my argument turned out to be just a straw man argument after all.

 

[lynnvinc]

I am wondering if you could share the science with us. Peer reviewed please.

The only way to know if we cause climate change from a scientific perspective is to control one variable while all others remain constant and then observe the effects. So with that in keeping I am assuming this about your own personal combat against change and what nations must do as well:

You personally do not consume, use, buy or do anything that came from industrialized operations. No driving, airplanes, theme parks, clothes shipped from overseas, etc. Also I would assume you don’t have your own computer or cell phone since those both use rare earth elements, metals and plastics. They are also transported via carbon emitting planes and trucks. You definitely don’t shop anywhere, ever and only hand make your items. Maybe you buy at the local farmers market buying only hand made locally produced items.

On a national level there could be no trade or movement of goods. No major airlines can fly in or out, no ships which move cargo that emit carbon could come in or out of their ports. No cell phones, no plastics, no harvesting of trees which means no new home construction. No steel production or use. No coal use for energy, nothing with petroleum. Cars and trucks would have to be outlawed.

Don’t have much time for the internet.

Many people have become very adept in searching and finding sources in libraries and the internet for things they want to know, but I understand how it is much easier if someone is there to point it out.

1st you have to start with learning about the greenhouse effect, which is based on the laws of physics re some atmospheric gases, like CO2, CH4, etc. Wikipedia has an article on that - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

RealClimate.org also has links to some resources for learning the basics of global warming: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Once you have a basic understanding, then for peer-reviewed lit, a good place to go is the IPCC reports, which is based on 1000s of peer-reviewed studies, especially in the Working Group I - The Science reports. See ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. You’ll find a lot of peer reviewed studies referenced there.

Of course you can also go to journals, like Science, PNAS, Nature, and other top-tier science journals and find articles re to climate change.

I was lucky that I learned about the greenhouse effect (& how life on earth would be impossible without the natural greenhouse effect) in high school back in the early 60s. So when the issue of global warming came up in the 80s, I was well prepared to develop a good understanding of it.

When I was called to Carmel – OCDS – in the late 80s, and was looking into my short-comings, faults, and flaws, I was very much impacted when I learned that climate change was increasing droughts in Africa, contributing to starvation there. At first I said to myself, “Why don’t they do something about this!!!” Then I realized I was part of the problem and that I had to do something about it.

I started with a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness, caught in & dependent on a system of high fossil fuel use. But I thought of Little Flower – St. Therese of the Child Jesus and Holy Face – and her way of Spiritual Childhood. I prayed for God’s gracious help and started doing whatever small thing I could however pitiful it may seem, offering it to God and His Kingdom. My husband, tho not as much into the issue of CC, graciously went along with me as long as we didn’t lower our living standard.

We started with one CF bulb, which was expensive back then ($10), but it eventually paid for itself and went on to save in reduced electricity costs. Then a low-flow showerhead for $6, which cut our shower water bill in half without us noticing the difference. Water takes energy to pump it and hot water takes energy to heat it. I did a bucket/stop-watch test and saw is reduced the water in half, and I figure we’ve saved over $2,000 on the water and energy to heat it to date. Not a bad investment for $6.

And there were many many other energy & resource efficiency and conservation things we did and saw our electric and gas bills plummet, without lowering our living standard, saving us $1,000s over the next few decades – including buying a Sunfrost Frig, which uses one-10th the electricity. Though quite expensive, it paid for itself in about 20 years and went on to save.

In 2002, when we moved to south TX from IL, we went on 100% wind generated electricity, which was a tad more expensive, but then became less expensive after some years.

In 2012 we bought a Chevy Volt, which we’ve been plugging into our wind-powered electricity. That was expensive, but since it is our last car (we’re getting old), we wanted to splurge, having bought beater cars all our 46 years of married life. However, we found that it is saving us nearly $1000 a year…which is great now that we retired in 2015.

In 2013 we got solar panels to generate about 40% of our electricity – which is also now saving us quite a bit each year.

We didn’t really plan all this as a savings and retirement plan, though it worked out that way. We just wanted to seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, including reducing our killing and harm of others thru climate change, but I must confess that I didn’t quite believe that ALL would be added unto us. I was a doubting Thomas on that, but now I believe because that has been our experience.

Bless all you who seek 1st the kingdom of God in this issue of climate change!

 

[Convert_in_99]

I am wondering if you could share the science with us. Peer reviewed please.

The only way to know if we cause climate change from a scientific perspective is to control one variable while all others remain constant and then observe the effects. So with that in keeping I am assuming this about your own personal combat against change and what nations must do as well:

You personally do not consume, use, buy or do anything that came from industrialized operations. No driving, airplanes, theme parks, clothes shipped from overseas, etc. Also I would assume you don’t have your own computer or cell phone since those both use rare earth elements, metals and plastics. They are also transported via carbon emitting planes and trucks. You definitely don’t shop anywhere, ever and only hand make your items. Maybe you buy at the local farmers market buying only hand made locally produced items.

On a national level there could be no trade or movement of goods. No major airlines can fly in or out, no ships which move cargo that emit carbon could come in or out of their ports. No cell phones, no plastics, no harvesting of trees which means no new home construction. No steel production or use. No coal use for energy, nothing with petroleum. Cars and trucks would have to be outlawed.

Why all or nothing? Why not start with moderation and doing the little things we can to protect our world and future generations?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Sounds like prudence would dictate that the Pope fly commercial, like all us other schlubs, rather than in a private jet with a personal and press entourage. Seems like a small price to save the planet.

Woah now. Pope Francis has rejected and refused to accept for himself a great many of the typical papal luxuries. He practices what he preaches.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

So you are implying the Pope, who has graduate education in science, and 1000s of climate scientists don’t know anything about anything and only you know the real truth?

God is Truth. Lying is a sin. Climate change denialism is not only a sin of lying, but also of putting millions of lives in jeopardy…billions if we fail to act now and we tip the earth system into an extremely life-inhospitable regime for 100s, 1000s, perhaps even 200,000 years as happened during the end-Permian great warming that killed off 95% of life on earth some 251 million years ago. Only that time was due to natural causes, so it took a lot longer for the system to tip into an extinction-level state for 200,000 years; we humans are doing it much faster, orders of magnitude faster, as if with a vengeance for life.

Prudence requires that we do our utmost to mitigate climate change, whether or not we accept or reject what Pope Francis has to say, or what 1000s of scientists have to say.

Well said.

Though I think willful ignorance or perhaps deliberate obtuseness rather than lying is a better description.

 

[CaptFun]

I wonder if Pope Francis’ urgency has anything to do with his (reported anyway) thoughts that he had just two to three years to live and might retire early?

excerpt from an article by

By Tom Kington, Rome 11:47AM BST 19 Aug 2014

… The Pope has spoken publicly for the first time about his own death, suggesting that he only has two to three years to live and may retire early.

Pope Francis, 77, made the claims during a press conference on his return flight from a hectic, five-day visit to South Korea.

When asked how he was coping with his huge popularity, the Pontiff replied: “I try to think of my sins, my mistakes, so as not to think that I am somebody. Because I know this will last a short time, two or three years, and then to the house of the Father.”

He then made a chopping gesture with his hand and whistling noise .

Humble sentiments. And reminding his hearers about the OTHER world (as is proper for Popes … – and lay Catholics too).

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11043193/Pope-Francis-I-only-have-two-or-three-more-years-to-live.html

More than two years have passed … it will be three years on August 19, 2017.

What climate change … remedy? … can be accomplished by then … and why it’s the UN that’s looked to to do it … and HOW (coercion? “consciousness raising”?) … is beyond my imagining at present.

Whether or not the Pope retires … or is retired in the manner he mentions … is less my concern than to hear some Catholic inspiration on the subject.

If the Pope is giving public spiritual counsel to the nations of the world … and only the secular and worldly excerpts of what he says is at all reported … that’s a sad thing.

Did Francis give any words of urging repentance without delay? Something along the lines of

**Leviticus 26:18-19 **

'If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 'I will also break down your pride of power; I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze.

… which would seem to reference “other sin(s)” than “climate change denial”.

Luke 12:54-56

And He was also saying to the crowds, "When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it turns out. "And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, ‘It will be a hot day,’ and it turns out that way. "You hypocrites! You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time?

… at least sometimes, it would seem, people place too much emphasis on things like the weather … and overlook the more important and everlasting matters.

 

[lmachine]

Sluggish ice growth in the Arctic

After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.

…]

As noted in our post last month, the Arctic is losing it’s oldest and thickest ice.

 

[Ender]

Though I think willful ignorance or perhaps deliberate obtuseness rather than lying is a better description.

Yes, as long as we can still consider them evil people it’s all good. It’s so much simpler just to dismiss them as people than it is to counter their arguments.

 

[kingston1]

Don’t have much time for the internet.

Many people have become very adept in searching and finding sources in libraries and the internet for things they want to know, but I understand how it is much easier if someone is there to point it out.

This whole thread has been a learning experience for me and what I said before is different than what I will say now that climate change is something to cause concern and the science seems sound.

My response toward you was snarky and I apologize if I offended you.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge; I’m digesting your post, lots to learn there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, as long as we can still consider them evil people it’s all good. It’s so much simpler just to dismiss them as people than it is to counter their arguments.

Hasn’t this been exactly what is going on in arguments like this, which are common:

“You know, the IPCC just wants to control population and push one world government, and that’s why they are pushing this hoax of global warming. Or is it “climate change” now, so that it can cover whatever the weather does? And scientists just want to go along with the crowd so they can continue to get funding. They 'tweak” the numbers to prove their points. They have no integrity."

Yes, it is so much simpler to dismiss them as greedy population control manipulators of data rather than to counter their arguments.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps I should re-quote that post of yours, so that we know exactly what it was that was not supposed to be the presentation of a pre-industrial economy:

And we should also quote what you were responding to:

So, kingston1 suggested that both the US and China need to work on reducing CO2 (for climate change mitigation). That’s reducing CO2, not reducing energy. kingston1 made no reference to energy in what you quoted. So it would seem your response of “But we need to recognize that energy use is an indicator of production” is telling kingston1 that we cannot reduce CO2 without reducing energy. And how much of an energy reduction? That is shown in what you say next, where you describe in great detail the poor productivity of producing goods with next to no energy (name removed by moderator)ut, and more importantly, without the use of a modern industrial economy. That is certainly the very definition of a pre-industrial economy. You described it. You linked it to CO2 reduction by using it to answer a question about CO2 reduction.

If you did not intend to link your descriptions to CO2 reduction, and it was just a non-sequitur, and not any kind of criticism of climate change mitigation through CO2 emissions reduction, then just say so and I will gladly admit my argument turned out to be just a straw man argument after all.

I said what I said, and I intended only what I said; that energy use is linked to productivity. The rest of the above is just a conversation you’re having with yourself.

 

[kingston1]

Why all or nothing? Why not start with moderation and doing the little things we can to protect our world and future generations?

Sure, why not? But the OP said that climate deniers are equivalent to someone who denies Divine Truth; the world is coming to an end and deniers will be responsible for the death of millions. So, question is what should we do and if the world is coming to an end shouldn’t that change be radical?

Climate change denialism is… putting millions of peoples lives in jeopardy.

There seems to be a chasm between those who are climate change prophets and the rest of us; we obviously don’t see what they see. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong but at the same time we want to know what they’re personally doing to live a carbon neutral life. If they’re not living a carbon neutral life do they REALLY BELIEVE? Also people’s ignorance is not deliberate as ignorance means we don’t know what we don’t know. So, who’s going to tell us? If it’s Leo DiCaprio or Al Gore or Gov Moonbeam Brown I automatically don’t believe them as soon as they open their mouth. As a matter of fact I am more inclined to believe the opposite it true. Where are the prophets of climate change who are trustworthy?

Of course, the prophets of doom may be living a life like St. John in the desert but instead we see Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio. Their giant mansions, giant electricity bills, giant planes, two Prius’ and carbon footprints of small countries don’t give them much credibility. All the while, your average climate denier (aka murderer of millions) joe six pack who pays taxes through the sweat of his brow is too busy to learn about this issue. At the same time he is using less energy, has no say over public policy, works 40+ hours a week, spends another 10-20 hours at kid’s activities but he is in fact responsible for the death of millions because he is a denier. *That dog don’t hunt. *

Finally, if global warming is rising faster in the past 10+ years than it would normally rise (or lower) for 1000 years and if the issue is compounded because CO2 and other gases remain trapped for a hundred years then only radical change can mitigate this most serious of issues.