Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Ender]

For anyone interested, that document is available here: usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

I’m still not sure I’d call it the “official Church position”, but it was voted on and approved by the entire body of U.S. Bishops, which is more than can be said for the letter in the OP.

The quotes in italics are from the document cited above.

While some uncertainty remains, most experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere.

This is a conclusion the bishops are utterly incompetent to make. The amount of uncertainly involved in modeling and understanding the atmosphere is staggering. The claim that “most experts” agree that the current atmospheric change is significant is also something they are not competent to judge. That it is simply asserted as fact doesn’t change the fact that it is opinion.

Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate.

If by international scientific bodies they mean the IPCC then the statement is valid … which completely begs the question of whether opinions expressed by the IPCC should be taken seriously. Something - again - the bishops are incompetent to judge.

As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility of “global warming.”

This statement is a … umm … deception. What the bishops have done is to lend their credibility to one side of the debate on the plausibility of AGW. This is an utterly disingenuous disclaimer.

*Rather, we accept the consensus findings of so many scientists and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a basis for continued research and prudent action …

*Apparently they are willing to make an independent judgment on the plausibility of the IPCC.

Inaction and inadequate or misguided responses to climate change will likely place even greater burdens on already desperately poor peoples.

Given that two of the major responses proposed are to reduce energy generated by burning fossil fuels - which is what is most readily available to poor nations - and significant population reductions - which cannot be achieved without major “contributions” from those nations with high birth rates (which are again the poor ones) the bishops might want to give this issue some more thought. Which assumes they have given it any real thought in the first place.

Ender

 

[4elise]

I said I want the truth to come out, which means all sides need to be hear and not prohibited from speaking. Those that now have changed their minds on climate change (global warming) are not allowed at the table. The silence is deafening.

I don’t see anyone being prohibited from speaking? There have been as many posts saying climate change isn’t happening as there are those saying it is happening, there is a man-made component, and we can do something about it.

Doesn’t seem silent to me?

 

[Fitz]

I don’t see anyone being prohibited from speaking? There have been as many posts saying climate change isn’t happening as there are those saying it is happening, there is a man-made component, and we can do something about it.

Doesn’t seem silent to me?

I am not speaking of this thread. I believe we actually can say what we want on this thread. Actually I had this in mind: foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

When the left doesn’t like the findings and it does not fit their mold- they suppress. Global warming, climate change- call it what you want but many people believe it is not man made, and that we can’t do that much to change the cycles.

When I read the Bishops letters I understand their committment to the poor, and I commend it. I am just very sceptical of this administration and it’s approach to problems.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know whether CO2 emissions have any effect on global warming. It sure isn’t happening around here, so it doesn’t immediately strike me as likely. But whatever.

I read where China is now the Number 1 CO2 emitter on earth, and establishes a new coal-burning facility every 10 days. India is not far behind the U.S. in CO2 emissions and will undoubtedly pass us soon.

So, making people in the U.S. freeze in the dark by making coal fired energy plants ruinously expensive through taxation accomplishes what, besides lowering the price of coal for China and giving pork sources to the U.S. government to pass out to its favorite “green energy” producers who couldn’t produce a kilowatt hour without massive subsidies?

That’s putting Catholic faith into action?

And, with a total one-party state like we have now, that is bound and determined to do it to us, I think we’re in a heap of trouble; trouble I am not sure we will ever get out of.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The absolute essential is to tell the truth.

1. ALL of the claims about future temperature increases are based on computer models. And there are legitimate questions about the validity and appropriateness of those models.
2. We now know that the temperature data that gets fed into those computer models is seriously flawed. Using the flawed data produces the result that the planet’s temperatures will increase by one degree over 100 years. There is no way of proving that because 100 years is a long way off. Nevertheless, if the badly collected data shows a one degree increase and if the correct data is as much as five degrees cooler, then perhaps with the correct data, the models would show a temperature decrease after 100 years.
3. We now know that the temperature has gone down over the past ten years, whereas the folks using the models have said the temperature should have gone up.
4. Economists such as Lomborg have demonstrated that the proposed solutions to the alleged problem are more expensive than alternative solutions.
5. Other scientists such as Soon have shown that warmer temperatures actually produce MORE prosperity rather than less prosperity, based on historical experience with higher temperatures.

So, it would appear that the proposed actions on climate change would hurt society at all levels rather than help the poor. The poor would be hurt more by the proposed actions than by doing nothing.

 

[4elise]

I received this yesterday:

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change
Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

House Climate Change Bill Leaves Poorest Countries Behind
Update July 1, 2009

House Climate Change Bill Leaves Poorest Countries Behind
By a vote of 219 to 212, the House of Representatives passed HR 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 on Friday, June 26. This cap and trade approach to reducing greenhouse gases and promoting clean energy is a significant step forward in protecting God’s creation and adequately protects low income people in the US from the impacts of increases in energy-related costs associated with this approach. However, the bill falls far short of what most believe is necessary to assist the poorest nations on earth adapt to climate change impacts. Most analysts believe that at least $28 billion/year will be needed. The US contribution should be significant since the US historically has contributed the most to the problem of greenhouse gas pollution. Revenue generated by the bill allows less than $1 billion in the first year (2012) and fails to ramp up that amount quickly enough in future years.
The U.S. Catholic bishops have called for at least $3.5 billion in the first year with a faster ramp up. As the bill moves to the Senate, we will be urging you to weigh in on this issue with your Senators. As it stands now, this legislation is fails a fundamental moral test: that poor people abroad are protected from climate change impacts.

Vatican Reduces Its Carbon Footprint/Will Issue New Encyclical
Plans are in the works to build a solar farm that could render Vatican City the first carbon neutral nation in the world. Already the Vatican is committed to energy efficiency and conservation through projects aimed at reducing its own carbon footprint like the solar-panels on top of the Paul VI audience hall, which produce an estimated at 300,000 kilowatt-hours a year. See full article from Catholic News Service here.
ALSO: The Holy Father signed his third encyclical on June 29. “Caritas in Veritate” will be presented on Tuesday, July 7. The encyclical will focus on the themes from Pope Paul VI’s “Populorum Progressio” namely, integral human development. It is anticipated that climate change and environmental degradation will be part of this latest encyclical.

Catholic Health Association Annual Meeting addressed Environment and Climate Change
The Catholic Health Association’s annual meeting theme “In Our Hands: Changing Ourselves, Our Communities, Our Nation” held June 7-9 included workshops on “Green Healthcare: Reverencing God’s People, the Earth’s Resources and the Mission of the Church” and “Climate Change: A Moral and Practical Issue for Catholic Health Care.” Catholic Coalition Executive Director presented at this workshop. Downloadable PowerPoint presentations (workshops B7 and C2) are available here.
Learn more about CHA’s bold program on addressing climate change throughout its network of health care institutions and facilities here.

CHA is fulfilling their commitment to the St. Francis Pledge to Care for Creation and the Poor. Have you? Sign up on our website here.

Clean Energy Economy Generates Significant Job Growth
The number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to a report released by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007. The report also found that this promising sector is poised to expand significantly, driven by increasing consumer demand, venture capital infusions, and federal and state policy reforms.
View the full report, along with the accompanying press release, fact sheets and other materials at www.pewtrusts.org/cleanenergyeconomy

Story: What One Diocese is Doing to Protect the Environment
excerpted from the Green Bay Gazette:
The head of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay is putting an emphasis on the “green” in Green Bay; Bishop David Ricken considers going green a calling. As part of this new emphasis, Bishop Ricken endorsed the Catholic Climate Covenant: St. Francis Pledge to Protect Creation and the Poor. “Conservation is becoming increasingly important because of the economic recession and the Catholic Church’s duty to protect nature and the poor,” Bishop Ricken told the Green Bay Press-Gazette.
“We try to view this in terms of our theology, which is around stewardship, that each of us has a trust that’s given to us as human beings who walk the face of the earth and that’s to take care of what we’ve been given,” Ricken said. “And not only to take care of it, but to improve it in some way….Our staff got together and said what are the little ways that we can use to cut down on [waste] and to use the resources we’ve been given in a more efficient way, that speaks and reminds us, even our consciousness, that ‘Hey, I’m just a passer-through here,’” he said.
See the full article about what the Diocese’s efforts to fullfill the St. Francis Pledge here.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Adverse impacts:

heritage.org/News/Cap-and-Trade-Global-Warming-Bill.cfm?gclid=CKvyw-mEt5sCFQuU7QodsmBAAg

 

[Ridgerunner]

The U.S. Catholic bishops have called for at least $3.5 billion in the first year with a faster ramp up. **My bishop, who could easily voice his support for Waxman-Markey or other “global warming” proposals, has not done so. So, I’m wondering what “The U.S. Catholic bishops” group consists in. The USCCB? A left-wing bureaucracy of laypersons who volunteered a million dollars to ACORN last summer? ** As the bill moves to the Senate, we will be urging you to weigh in on this issue with your Senators. As it stands now, this legislation is fails a fundamental moral test: that poor people abroad are protected from climate change impacts. They will, however, likely enjoy lower coal and petroleum costs, as the U.S. de-industrializes further, and Americans learn to live with less heat and light.

Clean Energy Economy Generates Significant Job Growth
The number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to a report released by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007. ** I am familiar with some of the businesses that cashed in on government subsidies to promote “green energy” during the period. Definitely, though it withdrew food from the market, it did employ people. It was all due to government subsidies, however. The government could probably save money simply by hiring those people directly and inventing jobs for them.**

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I don’t see anyone being prohibited from speaking? There have been as many posts saying climate change isn’t happening as there are those saying it is happening, there is a man-made component, and we can do something about it.

Doesn’t seem silent to me?

The EPA, and possibly other ‘government’ agencies, is suppressing reports to the contrary about ‘climate change.’

Remember the 70s? We were all going to usher in a new ice age with our evil and cavalier use of fossil fuel. The people who want to control you by fear can’t even make up their minds on what to scare you with next.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Remember the 70s? We were all going to usher in a new ice age with our evil and cavalier use of fossil fuel. The people who want to control you by fear can’t even make up their minds on what to scare you with next.

It’s like driving cattle, Kenshin. Just like driving cattle. It all depends on what direction you want them to go next.

 

[Calliso]

I am not speaking of this thread. I believe we actually can say what we want on this thread. Actually I had this in mind: foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

When the left doesn’t like the findings and it does not fit their mold- they suppress. Global warming, climate change- call it what you want but many people believe it is not man made, and that we can’t do that much to change the cycles.

When I read the Bishops letters I understand their committment to the poor, and I commend it. I am just very sceptical of this administration and it’s approach to problems.

Sigh I already posted on this so called supression yeah right here is yet another link though. scienceprogress.org/2009/07/dude-wheres-my-war-on-science/

 

[Calliso]

The EPA, and possibly other ‘government’ agencies, is suppressing reports to the contrary about ‘climate change.’

Remember the 70s? We were all going to usher in a new ice age with our evil and cavalier use of fossil fuel. The people who want to control you by fear can’t even make up their minds on what to scare you with next.

Actually even in the 1970’s many scientists were predicting future global warming because of fossil realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/ho

Full paper ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

And I already addressed the so called supression in other posts.

 

[jmtowle]

My business has slowed down the past week and I’ve used the discretionary time to research web sites for both sides of the argument. I was in the skeptical camp but am less convinced than before. The arguments / talking points favoring skepticism seem suspect based on what I have just read.

So now I am willing to give the proponents of man made global warming the benefit of the doubt and accept that their argument may be valid. One realization I am pondering is the reality that the pro man made GW camp is in a no lose situation which is a wonderful position if you can get it. If over the next 2-5 decades, temps go down or flatten, the pro camp can claim victory and if temps go up, they will state that we waited too long or didn’t do quite enough, which is nearly impossible to disprove. Whatever the outcome, the pro camp is running the show now and Western Civilization is betting on them. If China and Russia don’t get on board, there may be two additional sets of problems; a) they may be in a position to sabotage the experiment, and b) their economies may experience increased wealth while American and European economies may experience declining wealth. If either one or both of these countries gain a serious economic advantage over America and the European Union, the world will suffer greatly.

This is a great gamble.

I think I more clearly comprehend the risk / reward mentality of progressive thinking in this matter as regards economics. If they are correct and now is the time to do everything possible to reduce carbon emissions and at the same time blaze a new trail for alternative energy sources, the cause can be noble and the world may have America to thank for leading the charge. If our economy can initially tolerate the transition and then thrive as the pioneers of a cleaner, more sustainable world, we will be heroes for generations to come and Obama will be recognized as one of the great visionaries of modern times. Which brings me back to China and Russia. How important is it that they come on board and what will be the motivation to follow America’s lead? If they can sabotage the experiment for their own personal gain and potential economic domination,
who in the world will prevent it?

While I am conceding that man made global warming may be valid science, the questions that present themselves to my reasoning are; what is the greater good and how much risk should we take? I don’t think it can be successfully argued that the world will not suffer if America and the European Union’s economies experience a substantial loss of wealth due to transitioning from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Must we charge ahead without China and Russia, or can we gradually work towards these goals
while the world tries to persuade them to join the parade? Do we have a moral responsibility to the free world and beyond, to not gamble our economy to the degree we seem willing to gamble? When you toss in the revamping of the healthcare system and the various bailouts and the trillions of dollars to be spent for all these changes, the gamble seems to be even more daunting .

The American Pioneer spirit in me says the hell with Russia and China, let’s give it a shot and see what happens.

The Catholic Doctrinal side of me wonders how and why God would reward a nation led by a political party and President who are so anti Catholic regarding the basic human right to life of the unborn and the support of the intrinsic evil that is artificial birth control. I can’t help but wonder if we aren’t living in a time that mirrors the Israelite’s desire for an earthly king,“just like the other nations had”. Maybe we are heading for a healthy serving of humility by way of acute suffering. Maybe the train has left the station and the only track available has been sabotaged.

Based on what I have just written, you might never conclude that I am an optimist, which I am, but my observational skills suggest that many things just aren’t right. I hope for the sake of not only the faithful but all mankind, that God allows His great mercy to override His justice. I guess we will discover how that plays out in the not too distant future.

A time for prayer and fasting! A time for prayer and fasting! A time for prayer and fasting!

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT

 

[JimG]

"The U.S. Catholic bishops have called for at least $3.5 billion in the first year with a faster ramp up. As the bill moves to the Senate, we will be urging you to weigh in on this issue with your Senators. As it stands now, this legislation is fails a fundamental moral test: that poor people abroad are protected from climate change impacts."Interesting that “the U.S. Catholic bishops,” whatever that might mean, call for increased taxation for money to be sent overseas, without specifying what the money will be used for or who will receive it, or what controls should be in place.

I seem to recall a good deal of USCCB (i.e. parishioners’) funds being given to ACORN, and then cut off when it came out that ACORN was involved in fraud. Consequently I have some qualms about trusting the USCCB’s directions on where to spend taxpayer money.

The USCCB also seems to have some degree of certainty about the evil of CO2 (even though it helps to increase plant growth, thereby helping the environment), but has no developed theology on the morality of helping to advance global economic recession.

Heck, I didn’t even realize that CO2 was a theological issue. This will require some annotations to the chemistry texts.

 

[Calliso]

My business has slowed down the past week and I’ve used the discretionary time to research web sites for both sides of the argument. I was in the skeptical camp but am less convinced than before. The arguments / talking points favoring skepticism seem suspect based on what I have just read.

So now I am willing to give the proponents of man made global warming the benefit of the doubt and accept that their argument may be valid. One realization I am pondering is the reality that the pro man made GW camp is in a no lose situation which is a wonderful position if you can get it. If over the next 2-5 decades, temps go down or flatten, the pro camp can claim victory and if temps go up, they will state that we waited too long or didn’t do quite enough, which is nearly impossible to disprove. Whatever the outcome, the pro camp is running the show now and Western Civilization is betting on them. If China and Russia don’t get on board, there may be two additional sets of problems; a) they may be in a position to sabotage the experiment, and b) their economies may experience increased wealth while American and European economies may experience declining wealth. If either one or both of these countries gain a serious economic advantage over America and the European Union, the world will suffer greatly.

This is a great gamble.

I think I more clearly comprehend the risk / reward mentality of progressive thinking in this matter as regards economics. If they are correct and now is the time to do everything possible to reduce carbon emissions and at the same time blaze a new trail for alternative energy sources, the cause can be noble and the world may have America to thank for leading the charge. If our economy can initially tolerate the transition and then thrive as the pioneers of a cleaner, more sustainable world, we will be heroes for generations to come and Obama will be recognized as one of the great visionaries of modern times. Which brings me back to China and Russia. How important is it that they come on board and what will be the motivation to follow America’s lead? If they can sabotage the experiment for their own personal gain and potential economic domination,
who in the world will prevent it?

While I am conceding that man made global warming may be valid science, the questions that present themselves to my reasoning are; what is the greater good and how much risk should we take? I don’t think it can be successfully argued that the world will not suffer if America and the European Union’s economies experience a substantial loss of wealth due to transitioning from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Must we charge ahead without China and Russia, or can we gradually work towards these goals
while the world tries to persuade them to join the parade? Do we have a moral responsibility to the free world and beyond, to not gamble our economy to the degree we seem willing to gamble? When you toss in the revamping of the healthcare system and the various bailouts and the trillions of dollars to be spent for all these changes, the gamble seems to be even more daunting .

The American Pioneer spirit in me says the hell with Russia and China, let’s give it a shot and see what happens.

The Catholic Doctrinal side of me wonders how and why God would reward a nation led by a political party and President who are so anti Catholic regarding the basic human right to life of the unborn and the support of the intrinsic evil that is artificial birth control. I can’t help but wonder if we aren’t living in a time that mirrors the Israelite’s desire for an earthly king,“just like the other nations had”. Maybe we are heading for a healthy serving of humility by way of acute suffering. Maybe the train has left the station and the only track available has been sabotaged.

Based on what I have just written, you might never conclude that I am an optimist, which I am, but my observational skills suggest that many things just aren’t right. I hope for the sake of not only the faithful but all mankind, that God allows His great mercy to override His justice. I guess we will discover how that plays out in the not too distant future.

A time for prayer and fasting! A time for prayer and fasting! A time for prayer and fasting!

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT

Actually in regards to the part of your post about those in the proAGW camp being in the no lose situation I disagree. Cause remember if those in the proAGW side are right there will be a lot of suffering for many people including possibly themselves. But if the skeptics are right and global warming either isn;t happening or is good then well that;s a win win imo.

However I think the rest of your post made some good points. I really wish I had any easy answer but I donlt think anyone does. I mean I think no matter what we have to do something to reduce emissions. The question of course is what and how much do we do? Unfortunately I am not an optimist.

 

[JimG]

I noticed this from a previous link:

"The IPCC does not do original reseach. The reports are syntheses of the available scientific literature.
The cutoff for consideration for new material was in 2005."cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/

Does this mean we are basing all our analyses on a model which does not accept new data?

 

[Brendan]

I noticed this from a previous link:

"The IPCC does not do original reseach. The reports are syntheses of the available scientific literature.
The cutoff for consideration for new material was in 2005."cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/

Does this mean we are basing all our analyses on a model which does not accept new data?

Yep, one of the links I posted was a peer reviewed article by several Atmospheric Physicists that showed that the greenhouse properties of CO2 were being vastly overstated. That was from May of this year.

So it would be interesting to see the climatologists models re-run with the new data on CO2.

 

[Ender]

So now I am willing to give the proponents of man made global warming the benefit of the doubt and accept that their argument may be valid.

The point that is getting lost here is that this thread is not about whether AGW is real, it is about whether there is a “Catholic” response to “climate change.” The answer to that question is no.

There is no simply no charge of moral failure that could be levied against either side: if I believe AGW is false then there is no sin in opposing “mitigating” actions. If I believe AGW is true then there is no sin in supporting such actions and the truth of the theory is irrelevant since it is not immoral to be wrong. My belief may be catastrophically wrong but it is still not sinful … therefore there is no such thing as putting Catholic faith into action on climate change.

Ender

 

[4elise]

The point that is getting lost here is that this thread is not about whether AGW is real, it is about whether there is a “Catholic” response to “climate change.” The answer to that question is no.

There is no simply no charge of moral failure that could be levied against either side: if I believe AGW is false then there is no sin in opposing “mitigating” actions. If I believe AGW is true then there is no sin in supporting such actions and the truth of the theory is irrelevant since it is not immoral to be wrong. My belief may be catastrophically wrong but it is still not sinful … therefore there is no such thing as putting Catholic faith into action on climate change.

Ender

I can see quite easily how this is a moral issue and am proud that our Church is pointing to where the moral issue is - standing for the poor and vulnerable in the world on this issue and all issues. Inviting us to look at our own lives and find ways that we can try to make a difference. This is how I am putting my Catholic faith into action on climate change…our family gave up meat, poultry, dairy, eggs and fish. As I learned about the impact of food production in the US on the environment, we elected to remove ourselves from that loop - a personal choice that resonates with my faith. - I know it is impossible to do this 100% - but we are trying to do so because it just makes sense. Peace.

 

[4elise]

Actually in regards to the part of your post about those in the proAGW camp being in the no lose situation I disagree. Cause remember if those in the proAGW side are right there will be a lot of suffering for many people including possibly themselves. But if the skeptics are right and global warming either isn;t happening or is good then well that;s a win win imo.

However I think the rest of your post made some good points. I really wish I had any easy answer but I donlt think anyone does. I mean I think no matter what we have to do something to reduce emissions. The question of course is what and how much do we do? Unfortunately I am not an optimist.

Oh, Calliso - we have to be optimists!
We have to take steps believing our steps matter - no matter how small. I posted this earlier on this thread but I so love the prayer of Archbishop Romero - I am always inspired that our actions matter, no matter how small. Blessings

It helps, now and then, to step back
and take the long view.
The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of
the magnificent enterprise that is God’s work.
Nothing we do is complete,
which is another way of saying
that the kingdom always lies beyond us.

No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection.
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No programme accomplishes the church’s mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.

This is what we are about:
We plant seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything
and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something,
and to do it very well.
It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way,
an opportunity for God’s grace to enter and do the rest.

We may never see the end results,
but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker.
We are workers, not master builders,
ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future not our own.