The ability to “put Catholic faith into action” on this issue is totally dependent on the answer to the scientific question: is the theory of AGW valid? If the theory is wrong then all of the suggestions about what should be done to reduce man’s impact are wrong as well. The point is that the bishops offer nothing whatever in resolving the scientific question and until that question is resolved it is meaningless to talk about putting faith into action.
So you do believe that the bishops are the ones to turn to for their scientific expertise but beyond that you seem to believe that they have also given their opinion on the validity of AGW. In fact, of course, they have not and it is not clear why you think that they have.
Fine, but surely the significant point is that we don’t know what actions will impact the poor the most. If AGW is true then the long term gain of your actions might override the short term costs, but if it is false then nothing will reverse the short term costs and the poor will simply be worse off than before. Everything depends on the answer to the scientific question and answering that question is unarguably beyond the competence of the USCCB - nor have they attempted to answer it.
I agree with this so long as the discussion does not imply that one set of actions is morally preferable to another. This is not a moral issue.
Ender
I completely understand your point about the science issue and that the Bishops are not scientists - HOWEVER - what I understand is being addressed by the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change with the USCCB as a partner is that ALL ACTION should keep the needs of the poor at the heart of the discussion - and THIS is the moral issue.
From what I have read, and apparently what the USCCB has read, met and voted upon It in 2001 entitled “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good”.
usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml (thank you again Corki for finding the document
)
As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility of “global warming.” 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 (see the sidebar: The Science of Global Climate Change). Scientists engaged in this research consistently acknowledge the difficulties of accurate measurement and forecasting. Models of measurement evolve and vary in reliability. Researchers and advocates on all sides of the issue often have stakes in policy outcomes, as do advocates of various courses of public policy. News reports can oversimplify findings or focus on controversy rather than areas of consensus. Accordingly, interpretation of scientific data and conclusions in public discussion can be difficult and contentious matters.
Responsible scientific research is always careful to recognize uncertainty and is modest in its claims. Yet over the past few decades, the evidence of global climate change and the emerging scientific consensus about the human impact on this process have led many governments to reach the conclusion that they need to invest time, money, and political will to address the problem through collective international action.The virtue of prudence is paramount in addressing climate change. This virtue is not only a necessary one for individuals in leading morally good lives, but is also vital to the moral health of the larger community. Prudence is intelligence applied to our actions. It allows us to discern what constitutes the common good in a given situation. Prudence requires a deliberate and reflective process that aids in the shaping of the community’s conscience. Prudence not only helps us identify the principles at stake in a given issue, but also moves us to adopt courses of action to protect the common good. Prudence is not, as popularly thought, simply a cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good.
In facing climate change,
what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.
This responsibility weighs more heavily upon those with the power to act because the threats are often greatest for those who lack similar power, namely, vulnerable poor populations, as well as future generations.
According to reports of the IPCC, significant delays in addressing climate change may compound the problem and make future remedies more difficult, painful, and costly. On the other hand, the impact of prudent actions today can potentially improve the situation over time, avoiding more sweeping action in the future.
