T
tjm190
Guest
Took my post the wrong way- I believe in God through total faith (no evidence) making it blind faith. I will not do this for human caused climate change.
- Status
D
Don_L
Guest
My humblist apologies. I read your words several times and that was what I saw. Mea culpa! I believe we’re on the same team.
E
Ender
Guest
Each of us has the moral obligation to help one another but the mere fact that an issue impacts someones life does not make it a moral issue. The moral issues are those where one choice is moral and the opposite choice is evil and the question of intent is irrelevant. Most issues, such as global warming, are morally neutral in that there is no moral distinction that can be made based on which side of the issue one supports. One can support or oppose carbon offsets, cap and trade, Kyoto, etc and behave either morally or immorally in doing so because it is not the issue that determines the morality of the choice but the intentions, which are completely separate from the nature of the issue.
With a truly moral issue (of which there are very few) the morality of the action is predetermined and is independent of ones intention. With morally neutral issues it doesn’t even matter whether your actions are beneficial or harmful since the outcome contributes nothing to the morality of the act; morality in those cases is determined exclusively by the intent. Such is the case with global warming. This is why it is impossible to make any comment about the morality of someones actions (on global warming) without knowing why those actions were taken, and it is also why there can’t be a Catholic position on this issue.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
Your questions have been helped me seek the answers that I think may be helpful in clarifying all this, at least for me, while I am sure you will disagree: www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf
I am going to take this directly from this FAQ.pdf — because I thought it was so well put:
"Why is climate change an issue for people of faith?
Honoring creation is another way to honor God who created all that is. Because we value our relationship with God and God’s creation, climate change is for us a profoundly spiritual, ethical and moral issue.
It is a moral issue because while the poor have contributed the least to climate change, they will suffer its worst consequences. Catholic social teaching, based on biblical and Church teaching, calls us to consider first how our actions affect poor and vulnerable people. We have a special obligation to respond to our brothers and sisters in need.
What can I do?
Join with us to support The Catholic Climate Covenant: The St. Francis Pledge to Care for Creation and the Poor. This new and ambitious effort encourages Catholic individuals, parishes, schools, religious communities, dioceses and other Catholic organizations to commit themselves to a five-point St. Francis Pledge:
- pray and reflect on the duty to care for God’s creation and protect the poor and vulnerable;
- learn about and educate others on the moral dimensions of climate change;
- assess our participation-as individuals and organizations-in contributing to climate change;
- act to change our choices and behaviors contributing to climate
change and; and - advocate Catholic principles and priorities in climate change discussions and
decisions, especially as they impact the poor and vulnerable."
J
JimG
Guest
The quote given above is to me anything by clarifying. The coalition says we should be on the side of the poor. OK. They advocate more money for poor countries–mainly from the U.S. That might help the poor, or it might not, depending on who winds up with the money.
They don’t say much about actual policy proposals: carbon taxes, nuclear power, wind power, higher energy costs. In the end it seems to be just a way of putting the CCCC and the USCCB on one side of the climate change debate without actually saying so or actually advocating the policies which will be put forward by the environmental wing of political parties who wish to use the Catholic Coalition as a useful tool for their side.
They don’t say much about actual policy proposals: carbon taxes, nuclear power, wind power, higher energy costs. In the end it seems to be just a way of putting the CCCC and the USCCB on one side of the climate change debate without actually saying so or actually advocating the policies which will be put forward by the environmental wing of political parties who wish to use the Catholic Coalition as a useful tool for their side.
D
Don_L
Guest
JimG You are an amazingly patient man. I would add to your sage comment that “… depending on who winds up with the money…” reminds me that about $15 million dollars of our money sent to this group to help the poor “accidentally” ended up financing that political group ACORN which was instrumental in electing Obama (who supports the cap and trade fiasco) and helps the poor through advocating abortion (disproportionately black pre-borns) and if he had his way - the cruelest manner of infanticide.
4
4elise
Guest
My friends, DonL and JimG, I believe where we see this differently, and therefore how we take the information from the CCCC is that I am not looking at the information that is offered through a political lense – because I see a faith response to this issues. When I read a connection between a faithful response to climate change and abortion it is so frustrating, because OBVIOUSLY, this is not what the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops advocate. It seems a way to derail a discussion about a faithful response. I’ve noticed in many forums here on CAF that when someone disagrees with someone else, they throw the ‘trump card’ of abortion - to try to end a dialogue.
So - again, you may find this all useless because you either do not believe climate change is real, or do not believe there is an anthropogenic element or do not believe that we can or should do anything as individuals or as communities.
From what I have read and understand, climate change is real, and our efforts can both make it worse and have the potential to make a difference. I believe we - as Catholics - , as I know you believe as well, should try to be good stewards of God’s creation, if we believe this or not.
What I’ve seen the Bishops have advocated for policy - to KEEP THE POOR AT THE HEART OF THE DISCUSSION.
From this EWTN article: ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=96271
***The bishops acknowledged particular concern about the problem of global climate change, which puts poor countries and peoples most at risk.
They stated, “Protecting the poor and the planet are not competing causes; they are moral priorities for all people living in this world.”
The letter expressed confidence that the G-8 summit can “bring a light of hope to our world.”
It explained, “By asking first how a given policy will affect the poor and the vulnerable, you can help assure that the common good of all is served. As a human family we are only as healthy as our weakest members.”***
4
4elise
Guest
I thought this was a good article…
cmsmtemp.trueserver.com/CMSM_Alert/JulAug07/
Climate change, one of the most serious moral issues of our times
By Sean McDonagh
[Father Sean McDonagh, SSC, is an Irish Columban. He is an expert on climate change and related issues. He is the author of Climate Change: The Challenge to All of Us and Passion for the Earth (Ecology and Justice). His most recent article, “Climate Ethics,” was published in the June 18, 2007, issue of America.]
cmsmtemp.trueserver.com/CMSM_Alert/JulAug07/
Climate change, one of the most serious moral issues of our times
By Sean McDonagh
[Father Sean McDonagh, SSC, is an Irish Columban. He is an expert on climate change and related issues. He is the author of Climate Change: The Challenge to All of Us and Passion for the Earth (Ecology and Justice). His most recent article, “Climate Ethics,” was published in the June 18, 2007, issue of America.]
T
tjm190
Guest
Ya, it occurred to me after I wrote it that I had been unclear. I shrugged it off and hoped nobody who took it the wrong way would bring it up- nope!
4
4elise
Guest
*Aren’t we all on the same team even if we disagree
? *
J
JimG
Guest
Well, that’s the nub, as well as the rub: In order to convince humanity (or perhaps just the U.S.) to do some specific thing with respect to global warming, all these things must be firmly delineated and shown to be true.
- Global warming is real and continuing, and significant enough to make a difference to humanity. (I use “global warming” rather than “climate change,” since climate change has been occurring for thousands of millennia, sometimes warming, sometimes cooling. So sure, climate change is real, and always has been.)
- Mankind has been the primary element in causing an increase in global warming, (specifically mankind’s production of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.)
- There are specific actions which can be taken by humans to reduce global warming—actions which are significant enough to actually affect the climate across the entire globe.
- The actions to be taken will not do more harm than good, either climatically or economically, or socially.
- The recommenced actions will not unduly hurt poor people.
4
4elise
Guest
Yes, the IPCC - which the Bishops have said they accept their conclusions - I know other disagree with, say that it is real and continuing and significant enough to make a difference.
Again, the IPCC names mankind as a factor in the increase of CO2 - but again, if you disagree with the findings of the IPCC then you would disagree with this and reject their conclusion, and resent the bishops saying that they accept this.
Taking action to reduce CO2 - personally, reduce the use of fossil fuels, recycle, and go vegan
Here is where you may be surprised to find that I agree with you completely - we have to weigh the short term loss against any possible long term gain. I.E. cap and trade - I am certainly not convinced that this is the best action given the current state of our economy, and the potential impact on those already stressed in our country.
What I understand is that the USCCB has accepted the science as presented by the IPCC - and THEN said the action should keep the poor at the heart. As an example, something that gets thrown around, the position of the USCCB would not include any recommendation on population control right? — so
**
“By asking first how a given policy will affect the poor and the vulnerable, you can help assure that the common good of all is served. As a human family we are only as healthy as our weakest members.”**
J
JimG
Guest
So the USCCB’s faith response, is really an expression of faith in the IPCC–a faith which is not universally shared, even among scientists.Yes, the IPCC - which the Bishops have said they accept their conclusions - I know other disagree with, say that it is real and continuing and significant enough to make a difference.
Again, the IPCC names mankind as a factor in the increase of CO2 - but again, if you disagree with the findings of the IPCC then you would disagree with this and reject their conclusion, and resent the bishops saying that they accept this.
Taking action to reduce CO2 - personally, reduce the use of fossil fuels, recycle, and go vegan
Here is where you may be surprised to find that I agree with you completely - we have to weigh the short term loss against any possible long term gain. I.E. cap and trade - I am certainly not convinced that this is the best action given the current state of our economy, and the potential impact on those already stressed in our country.
What I understand is that the USCCB has accepted the science as presented by the IPCC - and THEN said the action should keep the poor at the heart. As an example, something that gets thrown around, the position of the USCCB would not include any recommendation on population control right? — so
**
“By asking first how a given policy will affect the poor and the vulnerable, you can help assure that the common good of all is served. As a human family we are only as healthy as our weakest members.”**
No, I would hope that the position of the USCCB would not incllude any recommendation on population control, especially since some countries are already being economically hurt by depopulation.
However, that fact won’t stop others from using the USCCB’s support of the IPCC to push for population reduction by all sorts of means which the bishops would not approve. It’s almost a given. Since people are considered to be the problem, many will recommend reducing or eliminating people as the solution.
E
Ender
Guest
People who claim this are simply unable to separate ends from means. We disagree on the means, there is no question about that, but that does not mean that we therefore disagree on the goals. Caring for creation is a goal we share; you think man’s actions can positively affect global warming and we don’t, that is a question of fact, not morality. One side is right and the other is wrong but neither side acts immorally in supporting different means because the intent is the same.
I cannot say whether the author of this document knows that his comment is piffle but it is clearly wrong. If it was true, then where is the Church document that says we have a moral obligation to support the recommendations of the IPCC? The bishops have said we must care for the poor and for creation and there is no dispute about that, but they have not said specifically what actions we must support so we are free to act in whatever way we think best.
Since individuals make take either side of this issue it cannot be a moral question.
This is more of the same: the author describes our obligations as to goals and infers that this somehow obliges us to accept his conclusions about what means would be effective. Our “special obligation to respond to our brothers and sisters in need” implies nothing whatever about how best to fulfill that obligation.
Do you recognize the implications of this statement? This is no more than we have said except we doubt more of the suggested solutions than simply cap and trade. What about your special obligation to the poor; what about your moral obligation to follow the recommendations of the IPCC? Isn’t this a moral issue?
How can you claim the right to disagree with one proposal and imply that we are somehow immoral for disagreeing ourselves? This is why the issue is morally neutral: no one knows what the best solution is, all we are obligated to do is make an honest assessment of the situation and act in whatever way we think will do the most good. That is a prudential question, not a moral one … which is exactly what your comment implies.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
Accepting the science of the IPCC as a starting point makes complete sense to me - and I acknowledge that many on this thread and others on blogs and other web sites don’t agree with the IPCC ---- and while others may try to use this to imply some implicit approval of obviously unacceptable policy — the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have been clear that the response needs to be one of faith, and compatible with Church teaching.
4
4elise
Guest
(is that a royal we, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?
) Should I imply a we and count myself among the mitered in this? (a joke getting late and I’m feeling silly)Ender, I must say that you are very good at debate. :tiphat: what you are saying above was the exact point I attempted to make earlier about morality. (which you so strongly disagreed with) I do not consider that someone who does not believe climate change is real - or if they believe it is real, but that there is no man made source - and this person does not act, there is nothing morally wrong in their inaction. HOWEVER, if I, (dare I say we?) on the basis of what I have read and believe - climate change is real and there are man made factors then ***I am bound to take actions that reflect that belief. ***
I’m guessing that the author does not consider his comment ‘piffle’ (is that a scientific term?) The quote is from: www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf - and while I am sure you(s) will find more things to disagree with here - for example this on the cap and trade question:
***Some say that by supporting climate change legislation—such as a cap and trade approach—will result in an uneven division of costs and benefits. Who will be the winners and losers if we have climate change legislation? ***
It is true that if a cap-and-trade program is designed incorrectly, it could certainly harm the poor. Depending on how it is designed, energy companies and others could make millions of dollars each year trading permits, but bear little of the costs of real CO2 reductions. Designed another way, such legislation could significantly increase costs for energy consumers hitting the poor the hardest. But religious leaders, including John Carr of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who testified before the U.S. Senate in June 2007, contend that a well-designed program could help reduce greenhouse gas pollution to forestall global warming and ensure that new resources are generated, allocated to protect the poor at home and overseas from the worst consequences of climate change, and provide for workers displaced by restrictions on emissions. *
So given the above, (oh you good debater :ehh
can you see that I am not ‘implying’ anything about morality for those who do not come to the same conclusion? Can you see why I believe it is possible to agree with the science as the Bishops do, but continue to be open to discuss the ways it should be addressed keeping the poor at the heart? Peace my friend.
W
walker_p
Guest
There is no such thing as man-made global warming. As others have pointed out, it is just another attempt by liberals to control every facet of everyone’s life. Liberals want to tell people what kind of car they can drive, what kind of house they can live in, what kind of light bulbs they can use, etc. “We used to be a country that made things.” Exactly! And one of the things we made were oil refineries. We need more oil refineries and we need more domestic drilling for oil. We are not leaving oil behind anytime soon - nor should we. You want to go nuclear. Okay. Let us do it. But the environmental cry babies won’t let us because of the hazards and the problem of storing nuclear waste for thousands of years.That sounds good to me. Like I said before, I am so sick of people immediately attacking anyone that brings up global warming as being a left wing liberal that needs to be Hannitized!
I think there is global warming going on myself. I do not think it is the dire situation that a lot of people believe it to be though. I do worry that a lot of people are having a knee jerk reaction to the situation and if we are not careful we could make some changes that are going to hurt a lot of people, which I thing the Bishops letter brings up.
Here a a couple of reasons I would like to go “green”
We use to be a country that made things. This could be our opportunity to get out front with green technology manufacturing and development. The reason I say that is because whether you believe in it our not this country and the world are going this direction. We can either fight it or get out in front of it. I myself would like to see us go more nuclear until we figure out some better solution.
- Less dependent on foreign oil
- Create jobs.
4
4elise
Guest
You might be interested to know that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have accepted the science of climate change as a basis to encourage Catholics to act and invite us to speak out for the poor — and this is the purpose of this thread - for additional information visit the web site on the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change: catholicsandclimatechange.org/There is no such thing as man-made global warming. As others have pointed out, it is just another attempt by liberals to control every facet of everyone’s life. Liberals want to tell people what kind of car they can drive, what kind of house they can live in, what kind of light bulbs they can use, etc. “We used to be a country that made things.” Exactly! And one of the things we made were oil refineries. We need more oil refineries and we need more domestic drilling for oil. We are not leaving oil behind anytime soon - nor should we. You want to go nuclear. Okay. Let us do it. But the environmental cry babies won’t let us because of the hazards and the problem of storing nuclear waste for thousands of years.
catholicclimatecovenant.org/about-us/
For example from these sites:
USCCB & CRS Send Letter to Congress about Climate Legislation
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Relief Services released an Action Alert June 24, 2009 urging Catholics to contact their members of congress about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The House of Representatives will perhaps as soon as Friday, vote on this significant climate change legislation, that could help or hurt the poor. The USCCB and CRS are calling members of congress to significantly increase the funding resources allocated for international adaptation programs so that people living in poverty around the world can be protected from the effects of climate change. Read the Action Alert and a recent letter sent from USCCB and CRS to members of Congress outlining our concerns.
D
Don_L
Guest
AMEN!
4
4elise
Guest
From: www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf
***What is climate change?
From the bishops’ statement on climate change: **
“Our enfolding blanket of air, our atmosphere, is both the physical condition for human
community and its most compelling symbol. We all breathe the same air. Guarding the
integrity of the atmosphere—without which complex life could not have evolved on this
planet—seems like common sense. Yet a broad consensus of modern science is that
human activity is [is altering] the earth’s atmospheric characteristics in serious, perhaps
profound ways. For the past century, researchers have been gathering and verifying data that reveal an increase in the global average temperature. …
“To deal with the difficulty of making precise measurements and arriving at definite
conclusions, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) to seek a clear explanation of the causes and possible impacts of this global
climate change.14 Because of the large number of scientists involved in the IPCC and its process of consultation, its reports are considered widely as offering the most
authoritative scientific perspectives on the issue.”
In their Fourth Assessment (www.ipcc.ch), the IPCC has concluded that human activity is in deed altering the climate. This assessment also highlights that the impacts of climate change, more drought, flooding, and other weather extremes will impact poor people and poor countries disproportionately.*
***What is climate change?
From the bishops’ statement on climate change: **
“Our enfolding blanket of air, our atmosphere, is both the physical condition for human
community and its most compelling symbol. We all breathe the same air. Guarding the
integrity of the atmosphere—without which complex life could not have evolved on this
planet—seems like common sense. Yet a broad consensus of modern science is that
human activity is [is altering] the earth’s atmospheric characteristics in serious, perhaps
profound ways. For the past century, researchers have been gathering and verifying data that reveal an increase in the global average temperature. …
“To deal with the difficulty of making precise measurements and arriving at definite
conclusions, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) to seek a clear explanation of the causes and possible impacts of this global
climate change.14 Because of the large number of scientists involved in the IPCC and its process of consultation, its reports are considered widely as offering the most
authoritative scientific perspectives on the issue.”
In their Fourth Assessment (www.ipcc.ch), the IPCC has concluded that human activity is in deed altering the climate. This assessment also highlights that the impacts of climate change, more drought, flooding, and other weather extremes will impact poor people and poor countries disproportionately.*
- Status