Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[4elise]

4elise,

I have a scenario for you:

When the next election comes up we will have two candidates; one lib. and one con.
the lib wants more than anything to prevent the harmful effects of MMCC, while the con. has little to no interest in MMCC. Rather the con. wants to end abortion as his main focus. Who do we vote for, or what is the ‘Catholic response’?
Furthermore, isnt it true that acting politically is the proposed ‘Catholic response’?

Hi TEPO - The Catholic response would be to do as the Bishops advised us in this past election - have an informed conscious, stay active and participate.

 

[4elise]

From several sources:

A survey, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”. If they don’t believe it in today’s climate (pardon the pun)of political correctness they won’t be getting any research funds and likely would be out of a job. So a big whooooptodo…on that finding. I’m only surprised it’s not 99.9%.

I love whoooptodo! I don’t think I’ve ever seen it written and I like puns — However, this was not a grant request — it was a survey.

I’m a skeptic but I would certainly answer yes to the first question - of course temperatures have risen. I might even say yes to the second question - the real question is, how significant is man’s role, and is it due to CO2 or other factors.

CO2 is one greenhouse gas - methane is another — - as someone who has studied this issue - what are your thoughts on this? earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

And: 350.org/about/science

 

[WinterWH]

Methane is a valuable fuel and exists in the ocean leaking up from the ocean floor.

The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. Perhaps proposals should be written to restrict water vapor. No more clouds.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE 14th SESSION
OF THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOSOC

ADDRESS OF H.E. MONS. CELESTINO MIGLIORE

New York
Thursday, 11 May 2006

The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era. Agenda 21 recognizes the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty, but this clearly cannot be achieved at any price. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stabilized at present levels – an unlikely eventuality as things stand - the global warming trend and sea-level rise would continue for hundreds of years, due to the atmospheric lifetime of some greenhouse gases and the long timescales on which the deep ocean adjusts to climate change. In such circumstances, moves to turn the United Nations Environment Programme into a more robust United Nations Environment Organization appear both prudent and welcome, in order to achieve a truly integrated approach to sustainable development in which both halves of that term are given their due weight.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2006/documents/rc_seg-st_20060511_ecosoc_en.html

 

[4elise]

Methane is a valuable fuel and exists in the ocean leaking up from the ocean floor.

The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. Perhaps proposals should be written to restrict water vapor. No more clouds.

Did you read the article?

 

[Ender]

**The liberals want to help the environment yet at the same time want to support abortion. The conservatives want to save the children but ignore the environmental concerns. **

This is simply wrong but it certainly highlights the thinking on this issue: conservatives oppose us because they don’t care. Disputing your solutions to problems that we don’t believe exist is not the same as ignoring the problems. I cannot see why you find our position so difficult to understand.

We don’t believe the theory of AGW is valid.

It is not possible to explain things more simply than that, which several of us have done over and over, yet you and others continue to insist that, no, we really believe the theory but we just don’t care or we don’t even care enough to learn about it in the first place. Environmental concerns call for prudential solutions about which people of good will may disagree. It is wrong (factually and morally) to assert that those of us who in fact disagree with you do so from some immoral motive (greed, indifference, …).

Ender

 

[Ender]

So - informing Catholics, and non-Catholics, that this is the way Catholics are called to respond in faith to the problem of Climate Change is of great value.

Your statement would be true if you replaced “Climate Change” with any problem at all. It is quite literally true of everything. What you are doing by lumping all things together, however, is to erase the distinction between prudential issues and (what are properly called) moral ones. If everything is a moral problem then what distinguishes abortion from climate change … or abortion from feeding stray animals; they’re all moral problems aren’t they? There may be some sense in which all problems are moral and there is a Catholic response to them - which can be summed up as “care” - but in the more common sense it is unquestionably misleading as it implies that the Catholic position coincides with one particular set of proposed solutions, and that is most definitely untrue. Untrue, that is, except for those issues that really are moral questions in that the Church has unambiguously specified which side is moral and which is evil.

What is implied by calling climate change a moral problem is to infer that the Church has endorsed a specific set of solutions, which is absolutely false.

Ender

 

[WinterWH]

Did you read the article?

A collection of false and/or misleading/ erroneous assertions.

For example, Hansen IS a big believer in carbon dioxide.

newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/29/090629fa_fact_kolbert

Try www.junkscience.com for starters.

And then www.sepp.org

Dr. S. Fred Singer has written many books on the subject; this is his latest

amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

There are many on-line sources of useful information.

www.wattsupwiththat.com is excellent

Here are a few more:

tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267
climateaudit.org/?p=1822#comment-122072
weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
spaceandscience.net/id16.html
gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html#thumb97.jpg
www.surfacestations.org

Dr. Howard Hayden has written several excellent books and has a newsletter.

energyadvocate.com/
energyadvocate.com/dangle.htm

 

[4elise]

A collection of false and/or misleading/ erroneous assertions.

For example, Hansen IS a big believer in carbon dioxide.

newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/29/090629fa_fact_kolbert

So in this article: “Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modeling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected.”

But I would think you would find something to agree with here since he doesn’t believe in cap and trade

Try www.junkscience.com for starters.

I discount this because of the obvious bias of this blog

Will look at the others later - but heading to work…
Blessings,

 

[JimG]

**I believe this is one way in which ‘the enemy’ can keep us divided! The liberals want to help the environment yet at the same time want to support abortion. The conservatives want to save the children but ignore the environmental concerns. Both issues need to be addressed. But by emphasizing one issue over another the confusion sets in. This keeps the Christians/Catholics divided . The issues are obviously important and discussed by the Vatican. It is the ‘world’ that is keeping us divided on the issues… **

“Helping the environment” or “taking care of God’s creation,” is a rather fluid concept, not easily quantifiable. To use a silly example, when I mow the lawn, am I destroying the environment? When our forbears switched from hunting and gathering–with minimal environmental impact–to farming, were they engaging in environmental carnage? Probably some of the hunter-gatherers thought so. When they gathered into cities to better enable commerce, that brought on such problems as how to dispose of sewage and deal with infectious disease, etc. Was the generation of electricity a step in the wrong direction? The provision of nuclear power generation, as in France? The use of high rise buildings? When it comes to carbon dioxide, how much is too much? We know that it is essential to have some; otherwise the oxygen in the atmosphere would soon be consumed and all life would die because plants could not use CO2 to make more oxygen.

How reliable are climatological computer models? Can we rely on them as a basis for making massive social changes? Have we thought through the effects of such changes? Would they end up being more deleterious than climate change itself?

 

[4elise]

Your statement would be true if you replaced “Climate Change” with any problem at all. It is quite literally true of everything. What you are doing by lumping all things together, however, is to erase the distinction between prudential issues and (what are properly called) moral ones. If everything is a moral problem then what distinguishes abortion from climate change … or abortion from feeding stray animals; they’re all moral problems aren’t they? There may be some sense in which all problems are moral and there is a Catholic response to them - which can be summed up as “care” - but in the more common sense it is unquestionably misleading as it implies that the Catholic position coincides with one particular set of proposed solutions, and that is most definitely untrue. Untrue, that is, except for those issues that really are moral questions in that the Church has unambiguously specified which side is moral and which is evil.

What is implied by calling climate change a moral problem is to infer that the Church has endorsed a specific set of solutions, which is absolutely false.

Ender

Ender - your response is very frustrating, because I thought you and I had come to understand each other - and found that we actually agreed where the morality existed in response to this problem and all problems Catholics strive to address.

1. You and I agree that the issue of abortion is a moral issue because there can be only one response
2. The problem of climate change - and all other issues - *(here not implying anything or inferring anything) *is a problem that is morally neutral as you say - however, as you have said it is the response - the action or inaction - where the issue of morality exists - and it does NOT ‘coincides with one particular set of proposed solutions’ - but rather encourages that the discussion continue in light of the following:
   • Prudence—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action
   • Poverty—concern for those least able to bear the burden
   • The Common Good—promotion of solidarity over self-interest

Honestly I really wish that I believed that that were no MMCC - it would be so much easier, I wouldn’t feel the need to make changes in my own life that address a non-existent issue - but since I DO believe my actions can and do make a difference as it relates to this problem then I a morally bound to take action personally and to discuss this with others - both those of like minds, and those who disagree with me.

God Bless,

 

[Ender]

Ender - your response is very frustrating, because I thought you and I had come to understand each other - and found that we actually agreed where the morality existed in response to this problem and all problems Catholics strive to address.

We agree. I am hypersensitive to any attempt to paint climate change as a moral issue in any way other than you have presented it above.

Ender

 

[4elise]

We agree. I am hypersensitive to any attempt to paint climate change as a moral issue in any way other than you have presented it above.

Ender

Yea for us Ender! :extrahappy:

We stuck it out, continued the discussions respectfully and found that we could clarify our positions - I feel hopeful, it sometimes gets discouraging to try to do this on the threads because it can be difficult to express oneself without getting defensive, or overreacting.
Peace my friend!

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

When the world acted globally for an environmental cause, what happened?
They banned DDT and the poor paid with it with their lives.

This is why I do not believe that environmental causes, movements, should in general be supported because they lack prudence. Restricting US drilling when we drill more safely than the 3rd world could mean that the more US drilling would be better for the environment!

We need more economists and medical doctors on the ground and less guys looking at test tubes. Malaria is a horror, and the ban was implemented when there were not adequate measures in place. NETS! They thought nets would take the place of husbandry of the problem, so they used financial force to get the poorer nations to comply and their people suffered with disease and died. (Spare me the enviromental propaganda put out to cover this horror. The cause and effect and numbers are quite plain as well as the cruelly absurd use of NETS to protect people who lived their from mosquitoes.)

DDT could have worked, could have been used responsibly to minimize the damage to the environment and save generations of the poor.

It is hubris to think mankind can grapple all the variables on global issues. Until I see more prudence and less force put upon the poor and at the poor’s expense I oppose global environmentalism, but approve of individual husbandry of the earth, which includes fostering big business in the first world which has the knowledge, Christian population to handle the power of big business responsibly (as opposed to all governemnts which by their nature tend to corruption)

heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/18963/Uganda_Defies_EU_Begins_DDT_Program_to_Fight_Malaria.html

 

[Joe_5859]

Yea for us Ender! :extrahappy:

We stuck it out, continued the discussions respectfully and found that we could clarify our positions - I feel hopeful, it sometimes gets discouraging to try to do this on the threads because it can be difficult to express oneself without getting defensive, or overreacting.
Peace my friend!

And it only took 826 posts.

4elise should earn some type of ribbon for persistence. This thread is still going strong after all this time!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Do people understand that there is a deadly difference between government-mandated curly light bulbs and personal use thereof?

And that the end result of all save-the-planet crusades is always, always eugenics?

 

[4elise]

And it only took 826 posts.

4elise should earn some type of ribbon for persistence. This thread is still going strong after all this time!

Thanks Joe!
We can do it, we can do it, we can, we can!

Peace and all good!

 

[4elise]

When the world acted globally for an environmental cause, what happened? They banned DDT and the poor paid with it with their lives.

DDT could have worked, could have been used responsibly to minimize the damage to the environment and save generations of the poor.

It is hubris to think mankind can grapple all the variables on global issues. Until I see more prudence and less force put upon the poor and at the poor’s expense I oppose global environmentalism, but approve of individual husbandry of the earth, which includes fostering big business in the first world which has the knowledge, Christian population to handle the power of big business responsibly (as opposed to all governments which by their nature tend to corruption)

The discussion of this and all environmental issues does indeed require prudence and as you say keeping the poor at the heart -

The issue of malaria and DDT is one that can not be minimized because the number of cases and deaths from malaria as well as the staggering life long burden of damaged spleens, lack of resistance to other tropical diseases, etc… HOWEVER DDT causes damage and death to the unborn children, damage to nursing infants - and damage to water sources, etc… treated nets DO make a difference, but on their own can only be part of the solution, water, sanitation, and mosquito irradiation as there are now DDT resistant mosquitoes too — but NGO’s working with Governments are working together - in this hand I would be less likely to believe the word of a chemical company myself, since they profit from the use!

 

[4elise]

Do people understand that there is a deadly difference between government-mandated curly light bulbs and personal use thereof?

And that the end result of all save-the-planet crusades is always, always eugenics?

I don’t know where you live, but I hadn’t heard anything about a government requiring that you spend less on your utility bill?

Sailor - you always come back to this point - perhaps we can actually discuss it in a rational way - how do you see the fight against man made climate change leading to eugenics - (I am adding the definition so we know we are talking about the same thing)

eu⋅gen⋅ics
–noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Such a plan would never work with the independent minded freedom loving people of our country - to try to tell someone who they could marry and who they could have children with - nope, just not buying this as an outcome of working to stop climate change.

 

[TEPO]

I don’t mean to ‘rain on your parade’, but I still have a few points I’d like to address.
I have no problem with going green or cutting back on smog. I think I heard the new Chevy volt gets up to 230mpg? That’s a good move toward cutting back smog. I have recently even contemplated trying organic foods and am in the process of creating my own version of vegetarianism which I will call “vegetablism” (only because I lack vegetables and consume way too much potato, processed foods, and flour). I do these things because I value Gods creation which consists partly of the earth and my body. Yes my body is Gods creation. So I should do what I can to preserve and protect these parts of “creation”. By doing these things I believe I am doing “Morally” good as everyone agrees…
My concern lies in the Faith of Catholics who have been advised through some Catholic
Bishops that they are allowed to vote through scientifically logical and statistically proven facts. And through this, the split has begun which allows Catholics to overlook the abortion issue. In a sense, allowing a moral perspective to voting for the pro-abortionists. How damaging yet underminingly political this is. How pre-meditated and sickening. The only good that will come from this will be the final ‘watering-down’ of the church. And that ‘good’ will serve none but the enemy. Evil… —those who hate the Church… And want to own it.
The irony is that not all of science even claims MMCC. It’s Al Gore and his “gaia” lovers who through the U.N. and the IPCC along with their fascination with globalization that came up with and keep pushing these solutions that propose more and more human control. Based on “Gaia theory” we need to “**model human activities after the living systems of our planet; the concept offers lessons for the design of economic, energy, social and governmental systems.” **gaiatheory.org/synopsis.htm
So as you can surely understand, basing human activity on living “systems of our planet”, and not after Jesus is evil…
A good question to ask yourself is: is it possible to be good Catholics who believe in Faith, and also believe the theories of science and its fact only mentality which by nature denies the very existence of God? Especially when it means steering away from preventing obvious EUGENICS type acts such as abortion? Yes abortion is the beginning stage of eugenics. The killing of the unwanted babies. That’s what it is!
I understand I cannot change some people’s minds on the issue. That is not my objective. My objective lies with helping those who are questioning their faith and their future roles in the world. I oppose the attempt in trying to persuade people to put their faith into science, who for their own personal reasons haven’t done so prior to this thread. So in a sense, I am steering the opposite direction of any attempts to convert ones faith into a faith in Catholocism watered down with science. We all need to question: can we really have faith in science and Catholicism? Will Catholicism continue to supersede science? Is everyone capable of understanding this? Is it possible to sustain this imbalance for generations to come? Do we understand that there should be an imbalance, where our faith outweighs science? Or are we just setting ourselves up for future problems? We must consider the future. Are we inadvertently destroying blind faith in God?

My final thought: It’s okay to be healthy and ‘green’, as long as you keep your faith God and the Holy Catholic Church first! Its okay to have blind faith and still be ‘green’! Its okay to deny things in the world that you disagree with. And by denying things you don’t have to feel guilty. Or immoral. Because you do it in the name of God.
Please don’t hate me!