Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[JimG]

Maybe I’m missing something here. A quote from one of the previous links says this:

“Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes.
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.”

It says that global cooling occurred when CO2 fell below 450ppm. Then it goes on to say we must reduce CO2 from 385 to 350 to avoid global warming.

For the first figure it gives a plus or minus of 100ppm–quite a range of uncertainty, particularly when it is talking about mankind making a global effort to reduce CO2 by 35ppm.

If we happen to overshoot, do we bring on a new ice age? Is there some scientific hubris involved here?

Personally, I don’t want to be the one who has to tell the Chinese government that they must quit using coal-fired generating plants. Neither do I wish to be the one to tell all the rest of the world that we must all pay much higher prices for electricity, thereby hurting the poor the most.

 

[Ender]

Here’s an official document …

This is a quote from that document:

The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest

It is completely irrelevant who makes such a claim; it is a statement that is either correct or incorrect and that it was made by the Vatican envoy to the UN has no bearing on which. I reject it out of hand and given that (according to the August report from NOAA) the warming in the last decade has been 0.00 degrees (after the El Nino - Southern Oscillation effects were removed) it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain this fiction. The truth of such a claim, however, is not the topic of this thread.

Please keep in mind two things:

1. It does show the Catholic Church’s position regarding global warming and

1. It is not dogma of faith so a Catholic can disagree with it.

This is the point: there is no Church teaching on man’s contribution to global warming so each of us is completely free to decide the question for ourselves. I disagree that the UN document shows the Church’s position on global warming; Msgr. Migliore may have a position but the Church does not.

Ender

 

[otjm]

Maybe I’m missing something here. A quote from one of the previous links says this:

“Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes.
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.”

It says that global cooling occurred when CO2 fell below 450ppm. Then it goes on to say we must reduce CO2 from 385 to 350 to avoid global warming.

For the first figure it gives a plus or minus of 100ppm–quite a range of uncertainty, particularly when it is talking about mankind making a global effort to reduce CO2 by 35ppm.

If we happen to overshoot, do we bring on a new ice age? Is there some scientific hubris involved here?

Personally, I don’t want to be the one who has to tell the Chinese government that they must quit using coal-fired generating plants. Neither do I wish to be the one to tell all the rest of the world that we must all pay much higher prices for electricity, thereby hurting the poor the most.

You noticed that too, hunh?

And as I have noted, it makes the presumption that CO2 is the main cause (sunspot activity never mind, cycling with the heating and cooling pattern), does not take any account of ocean activity (of which we don’t seem to know the cause, but which also appears to cycle) and ignores one of the most active sources of CO2 - volcanic.

Anyone want to put a plug in an explosive volcano - say, Mount St. Helens?

This whole subject has been so thoroughly politicized - ask anyone reasonably related to the issues such as climitologists what type of pressure has been brought to bear concerning advancement and competition for resarch money.

And anything that becomes so highly politicized no longer is a search for truth, but a search for skewed information that supports the political philosophy.

Totally off topic, but we are seeing the same political cram down on health care; no question we need a solution; but anyone who dares question the sacred cow is now a brown shirt.

 

[4elise]

From: BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 26 August 2009 vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090826_en.html

How important it is then, that the international community and individual governments send the right signals to their citizens and succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment! The economic and social costs of using up shared resources must be recognized with transparency and borne by those who incur them, and not by other peoples or future generations. The protection of the environment, and the safeguarding of resources and of the climate, oblige all leaders to act jointly, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the world (cf. no. 50). Together we can build an integral human development beneficial for all peoples, present and future, a development inspired by the values of charity in truth. For this to happen it is essential that the current model of global development be transformed through a greater, and shared, acceptance of responsibility for creation: this is demanded not only by environmental factors, but also by the scandal of hunger and human misery.

 

[TEPO]

**4elise-
I am under the impression that the bishops have asked us to create civil dialogue while considering prudence, poverty, and the common good. And though it has been made clear to me that you wish to not discuss certain points I’ve made or rather you don’t accept their relevance in any decision making, I must continue with the remaining questions. **

http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/
“We … call for a civil dialogue and prudent and constructive action to protect God’s precious gift of the **earth’s atmosphere **with a sense of genuine solidarity and justice for all God’s children.”
—U.S. Catholic Bishops

C. These are things we haven’t quite agreed upon yet:
2) If pushing for the urgency of MMCC will prove damaging in the Catholic fight against abortion.

Now, the Bishops statement makes sense, because he shows the two sides: “earths atmosphere” & “All Gods children”. And even though the Bishop has expressed the IPCC’s concern with MMCC, while not mentioning the urgency of abortion, we still must consider the unfortunate American imbalance between the issues:

realchoicespcc.org/abortion.html
FACT: “One out of every 4 babies conceived in the United States is aborted “
FACT: One of most common reasons for Abortion: “fear of financial liability”

So answer this: If drastic measures towards cutting CO2 are emplaced, which in turn, financially harm the American economy. And a free unified healthcare plan is emplaced, how much of an increase from 1.2 million abortions a year could we have? Could it reach 2,000,000.00 per year? And should Catholics be concerned with increased abortion due to preventing MMCC?

Please respond rationally… I know this is hard, but the questions must be asked!!!

 

[TEPO]

Perhaps we ALL as Catholics need to petition to our congressmen, Senators and the like, that we’re tired of this awkward and senseless split… No party should endorse abortion! Do you think we can support abortion yet still save the world? This is o.k. with God?
I think not!

 

[otjm]

From: BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 26 August 2009 vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090826_en.html

Which really says nothing about global warming or global weather change, and actually doens’t say a whole lot new since Rerum Novarum.

 

[4elise]

**4elise-
I am under the impression that the bishops have asked us to create civil dialogue while considering prudence, poverty, and the common good. And though it has been made clear to me that you wish to not discuss certain points I’ve made or rather you don’t accept their relevance in any decision making, I must continue with the remaining questions. **

http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/
“We … call for a civil dialogue and prudent and constructive action to protect God’s precious gift of the **earth’s atmosphere **with a sense of genuine solidarity and justice for all God’s children.”
—U.S. Catholic Bishops

C. These are things we haven’t quite agreed upon yet:
2) If pushing for the urgency of MMCC will prove damaging in the Catholic fight against abortion.

I think I always try to respond rationally… sorry if you think I’ve done otherwise my friend.
So… the point above *‘pushing the urgency of MMCC would damage the Catholic fight against abortion’ * I don’t agree…

The Church has social teaching that can be applied to MANY current issues (immigration, health care, international missions, sustainable development) - and to advocate for one, does not diminish the other:
osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

Now, the Bishops statement makes sense, because he shows the two sides: “earths atmosphere” & “All Gods children”. And even though the Bishop has expressed the IPCC’s concern with MMCC, while not mentioning the urgency of abortion, we still must consider the unfortunate American imbalance between the issues:

realchoicespcc.org/abortion.html
FACT: “One out of every 4 babies conceived in the United States is aborted “
FACT: One of most common reasons for Abortion: “fear of financial liability”

So answer this: If drastic measures towards cutting CO2 are emplaced, which in turn, financially harm the American economy. And a free unified healthcare plan is emplaced, how much of an increase from 1.2 million abortions a year could we have? Could it reach 2,000,000.00 per year? And should Catholics be concerned with increased abortion due to preventing MMCC?

Please respond rationally… I know this is hard, but the questions must be asked!!!

Catholics should always be concerned about abortion.
Catholics should always work to find ways to reduce it today and eliminate it tomorrow.

I believe that you are suggesting that attempts to address MMCC will be costly and will therefore put an additional burden on women who may make a choice for abortion based upon “fear of financial liability” - is that your assumption?

I think it is a valid concern that the economy will impact this because as you say women site the “fear of financial liability” as a reason ---- ***However ***the current financial crisis is NOT based upon any effort to fight MMCC - but rather the result of greed and an unregulated market.

I believe the efforts to switch to alternative energy will in the long run save money. eere.energy.gov/ so will actually help,
I believe if more give up meat, dairy, eggs we will help fight MMCC and have more money to give to support pro-life causes
I believe if Catholics make the connection that we don’t need a lot of junk, we can also save money to support pro-life causes.

These issues are not mutually exclusive and efforts to connect the dots on MMCC can ultimately help the pro-life issues too, IMHO.

 

[TEPO]

I believe that you are suggesting that attempts to address MMCC will be costly and will therefore put an additional burden on women who may make a choice for abortion based upon “fear of financial liability” - is that your assumption?

Exactly! You see, with free healthcare, mothers who dont feel like they can support a new baby, can easily and **for-free **eliminate the whole problem…
My concern on this issue does not stem from the current economic crisis, though (although that is a good concern too) but if the world economy takes a rather substancial blow from an energy overhaul. In fact, the world abortion numbers will skyrocket!!

Now if it is inevidable, then lets make plans to combat the issues. Anyone who supports energy overhaul policy is responsible.

(maybe these are the inevidable eugenics we’ve heard of!)

 

[4elise]

Exactly! You see, with free healthcare, mothers who dont feel like they can support a new baby, can easily and **for-free **eliminate the whole problem…
My concern on this issue does not stem from the current economic crisis, though (although that is a good concern too) but if the world economy takes a rather substancial blow from an energy overhaul. In fact, the world abortion numbers will skyrocket!!

Now if it is inevidable, then lets make plans to combat the issues. Anyone who supports energy overhaul policy is responsible.

(maybe these are the inevidable eugenics we’ve heard of!)

Another possibility?..

I would also consider that expectant mothers might consider NOT having insurance a serious financial concern - therefore having access to free health care could also relieve that financial burden, freeing them to have and care for their child.

I would also consider that a move to sustainable energy will also make energy less expensive thereby putting more money in the pockets of these moms

I think the issue of ‘eugenics’ is used to keep the status quo that makes the oil companies and their investors rich - and the pressure on the poor.

 

[TEPO]

Another possibility?..

I would also consider that expectant mothers might consider NOT having insurance a serious financial concern - therefore having access to free health care could also relieve that financial burden, freeing them to have and care for their child.

I would also consider that a move to sustainable energy will also make energy less expensive thereby putting more money in the pockets of these moms

I see your points. But what I am saying is that having a free abortion would solve the problems of trying to feed the child and raise it. The initial costs of birth or abortion are equally minimal when compared to the thousands upon thousands of dollars it costs to raise the child into adulthood…

With a shattered economy due to the reduction of industry and energy overhaul, the free abortion idea will sound like a ‘responsible’ idea.

You know, I work in the energy industry, normally, and I know for a fact that windmills, and solar panels are incapable of handling any type of serious load, especially during peak demand hours. We’ll have to coat the globe with these devices. They’re costly and inefficient. The wiring will be heavy and expensive, and when problems arise it will take much longer to fix. I’ll make tons of money in the future- while everyone else starves…
Although the new ‘green’ jobs will pop up, they wont match up to the losses across the board.

 

[4elise]

I see your points. But what I am saying is that having a free abortion would solve the problems of trying to feed the child and raise it. The initial costs of birth or abortion are equally minimal when compared to the thousands upon thousands of dollars it costs to raise the child into adulthood…

For all intent and purpose a women who wants an abortion can get one for free sadly because of organizations like planned parenthood - and while no federal funding is used, (except with the limited allowance of the The Hyde Amendment) in 33 states - 17 states do use public funds to pay for abortions for women covered by medicaid. (Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.)

Following your point - much of what has been done by government to support the poor, increasing minimum wage, subsidize low cost housing, and working to make it possible to keep health insurance, even if one loses a job, should have a positive impact to support women who would make such a choice

Its our job to demonstrate that the responsible thing to do, if one believes that they can not financially support a child is to offer the child for adoption for a family who is waiting to do so - there are many, many families who wait years to be able to adopt a healthy infant. This has been the work of groups like the St. Anne guild

With a shattered economy due to the reduction of industry and energy overhaul, the free abortion idea will sound like a ‘responsible’ idea.

You know, I work in the energy industry, normally, and I know for a fact that windmills, and solar panels are incapable of handling any type of serious load, especially during peak demand hours. We’ll have to coat the globe with these devices. They’re costly and inefficient. The wiring will be heavy and expensive, and when problems arise it will take much longer to fix. I’ll make tons of money in the future- while everyone else starves…
Although the new ‘green’ jobs will pop up, they wont match up to the losses across the board.

I understand that as they are today - wind and solar - would be not be able to meet our current needs - this is why we should be working to decrease demand, and the develop the infrastructure to make this work - obviously not overnight - I believe if we make this move, and if the US leads in the development we will also lead the world - we are so innovative - if we put our minds to it, I believe we can do it! So to have the benefit of reducing CO2 we will ultimately save and decrease demand -

When it comes to abortion rates - I agree, the economy has a tremendous impact - we should be making education and health care a priority - women who have these are far less likely to find themselves facing a pregnancy for a child they believe they can not support - AND - we should be making the adoption option more well known and attractive as a responsible decision.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

So answer this: If drastic measures towards cutting CO2 are emplaced, which in turn, financially harm the American economy. And a free unified healthcare plan is emplaced, how much of an increase from 1.2 million abortions a year could we have? Could it reach 2,000,000.00 per year? And should Catholics be concerned with increased abortion due to preventing MMCC?

Please respond rationally… I know this is hard, but the questions must be asked!!!

I think that the only people who will really be effected financially will be big business. New jobs will be created by pushing for alternative energy sources. It’s a free trade argument…

The President SEEMS to be altering his position on the government funding on abortion… maybe he is ACTUALLY LISTENING to the people… of course when polititians do that they are accused of flip-flopping and being weak in their stance… but, isn’t that what they are supposed to do? LISTEN???

And I think that Catholics who are in tune with the Vatican should be concerned about MMCC and the abortion issue.

It is the ‘world’ ( political platforms ) which keeps us divided. And we all know the story about ’ a house divided’…

It is in our union as Christians that we stand alone.

 

[otjm]

I would also consider that expectant mothers might consider NOT having insurance a serious financial concern - therefore having access to free health care could also relieve that financial burden, freeing them to have and care for their child.

The “financial concern” expectant mothers have has little or nothing to do with not having insurance. It is the “financial concern” of not having an adequate job to be able to raise the child, and more importantly, not having a husband who contributes financially to raising the child. Far more women who abort do so because their “boy friend” (“boy” may be correct, but “friend” is an oxymoron) wants nothing to do with being a father.

Argue all you want but there is the need for reform and until something moves forward to change the status quo we are all victims of a tyrannical systemI would also consider that a move to sustainable energy will also make energy less expensive thereby putting more money in the pockets of these moms

Nothing I have seen yet can produce a watt of electricity for anywhere near the minimal cost of hydro, coal, gas or nuclear processing. Not solar, not wind, not wave technology, not even methane from cow manure. None of the proposed green methods of producing electricity are economically viable in any major production method, and that is not even beginning to get into the enviornmental issues they cause.

I think the issue of ‘eugenics’ is used to keep the status quo that makes the oil companies and their investors rich - and the pressure on the poor.

a little logic should show this is nothing but a mantra from the left.

Oil companies make a profit in two major ways: refining what others have found, or finding a new source of oil.

Eugenics results in a lower population.

A lower population results in lower demand.

Lower demand results in lower sales.

Lower sales result in lower profit.

What part of that is not clear?

Oh, I forgot; “don’t confuse me with facts; I already have my mind made up.”.

Of course, part of the eugenics movement is to get rid of the poor; and given the percentage rate of abortions among, for example, the black population, which proportionally has a much higher rate of abortion and statistically ranks much lower overall economically, perhaps Sanger is getting her way finally. Amazing that Obama doesn’t even acknowledge the issue. But then, he’s not poor, is he.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

a little logic should show this is nothing but a mantra from the left.

Oil companies make a profit in two major ways: refining what others have found, or finding a new source of oil.

Eugenics results in a lower population.

A lower population results in lower demand.

Lower demand results in lower sales.

Lower sales result in lower profit.

What part of that is not clear?

At the risk of seeming a little sarcastic, it does make sense if you don’t think about it. But, I seriously doubt that the oil companies are worried about population as a potential money maker.

My imagination tells me they are merely trying to stay afloat while the world makes the transition to more ‘green’ alternatives. We all know that this is not something that will happen overnight.

It is inevitable that it WILL happen, however. It has to.

 

[otjm]

At the risk of seeming a little sarcastic, it does make sense if you don’t think about it. But, I seriously doubt that the oil companies are worried about population as a potential money maker.

My imagination tells me they are merely trying to stay afloat while the world makes the transition to more ‘green’ alternatives. We all know that this is not something that will happen overnight.

It is inevitable that it WILL happen, however. It has to.

“Green” energy certainly has potential to replace oil if for no other reason than there appears to be a finite amount of oil, and of that, a finite amount that is recoverable. There appears to be way more coal than oil available, and there is the potential to clean up coal prior to and during useage. But unless there are some serious breakthroughs in solar technology, it will continue to be an expensive, cumbersome and very secondary producer of energy. Wind power has its problems, not the least of which is the lack of consistency of production.

The likelyhood of any method replacing oil for energy production is nulcear and coal and the issues surrounding both continue to be debated.

 

[Bishop_David]

dont breath when you pray, humans breath expell co2 every breat, please pray in silence.

 

[otjm]

dont breath when you pray, humans breath expell co2 every breat, please pray in silence.

Leave it to those Trappists to be environmentally correct in their daily life! LOL!

 

[Bill_Cherry]

dont breath when you pray, humans breath expell co2 every breat, please pray in silence.

It isn’t the CO2 that is the problem…
It’s methane…so, fill in the blank…

 

[otjm]

It isn’t the CO2 that is the problem…
It’s methane…so, fill in the blank…

But Diet for a Small Planet says I must eat beans!

How will I ever be politically correct?!?