Even the scientists who agree with the proposition that the climate is warming do not necessarily concur with the political solutions proposed to deal with it. The pastoral letters by the bishops caution that political proposals have to take into account the poor. As an example, a gas tax may sound like a great idea, but it has to be taken into account whether the poor (who drive the older more-consuming cars) will be disproportionately affected. Growing corn for ethanol sounds fine, except when the effect on food prices and the Midwestern aquifers is not known. In Oregon, one company appears to have falsely used a single wind facility to obtain the tax credits due to several separate enterprises, at the cost of tens of millions of dollars to a state that is facing larger and larger class sizes.
There are 1000s of measures one can take to mitigate climate change; among those I’d say the vast majority save money or have no cost or no net cost.
One could used that saved money to help the poor, so I really don’t see how the poor will suffer. In fact Hunter Lovins said that the poor cannot afford not to caulk their windows, etc. And I remember a case of a very poor woman in Chicago having a $400 gas bill in her one BR apt back in the 90s, when our gas bill out in Aurora (where the temps are lower in winter bec it doesn’t get the warming lake effect) for a large 3 BR house was about $100 that same month. She couldn’t pay, she was in dire straights. But imagine if she or someone had gone in and caulked her windows and made her apt energy conservative/efficient, her gas bill probably would have been $60.
I’m against raising gas taxes, etc. in the name of mitigating global warming – the only thing that does is make people pay more. It in no way lowers a persons GHG emissions. People have to consciously decide to do that themselves, either to save $$$ or to save lives & reduce harms to others, or both.
I might be for a money-neutral “fee & dividend” in which the energy fees collected go back to the people equally divvied up; then they could decide if they want to use that money to become energy/resource efficient/conservative and get onto the track of saving $$, or just stay at they inefficient level at no extra cost. Of course that women I wrote about would be paying more bec of her tremendous waste of gas, so there should also be programs available to help people become energy conservative/efficient if they want to go on that track.
The rich will probably ignore all this and just pay more for their much higher energy use.
Just because one is not ready to write a blank check to anyone who claims to care about the environment does not mean one does not understand physics or is not a “moral being”. And, by the way, being a moral being does not mean defending a particular set of “living standards”. If the moral thing to do is to lower our comfort level, then so be it.
If one reads the pastoral letters on the environment, one sees this is not a one-issue matter, nor one that leads to a single course of action. It does not do to imply that it is.
The Bible clearly states “thou shalt not kill” and gives us plenty of instruction not to harm others financially or physically, but it does not specify or limit by what means (nor by what means to reduce that harm).
One who understands AGW is killing and harming people in various ways, if that person is a moral being of any mainstream religion, would probably connect the dots and strive to reduce their harm.
Of course if people refuse to even consider AGW and its well-established harms are real, then I suppose they are not culpable of any sin…as long as that is their sincere belief and no one has told them to the contrary. The vast majority of people in my personal world are not very cognizant of AGW and are not doing much about it.
And my husband gets sick of hearing me talk about it, saying we don’t have children, or “they” will come up with solution, but nevertheless he goes along with nearly everything I suggest we do to mitigate it. And for that God has truly blessed me with a terrific husband. And I’ve even heard him talking about enviro issues and solutions to others when he didn’t know I was listening…and in some circles he’s considered an environmentalist himself
I sort of think that many who are skeptical of AGW are so bec it would place a moral burden of responsibility on them, and also perhaps threatens to damage their self-image.
I remember in 1990 when I came to grips with the fact that I was harming others thru AGW and it was my responsibility to do something about it – I felt just terrible, esp since I didn’t have hardly any idea what to do about it. I spent that Lent on the cross next to Jesus, the Good Thief who was repentant, but couldn’t get down an recitify my sins, until Holy Week when I realized I was the Roman soldier pounding the nails into Jesus – except I knew what I was doing. I prayed and prayed that Jesus show me the way to solve this problem.
People may think I crazy for feeling that way, but that’s how I felt. And I was so glad and happy that Jesus forgave me anyway, and then ecstatic as my prayers were answered and I began to find one solution after another. CF bulbs were just out then, we got a low-flow showerhead and installed a low-flush toilet, caulked our windows, put a water heater jacket on, put forth effort to turn out lights not in use, installed a new fixture in our breakfast area (going from 5-60 watt incandescants in amber chimneys to 1-15 watt globe CF bulb, in a new bevelled glass and oak fixture – the floor model in K-Mart for $49.99). We watched our energy bills reduce, and the following year when we got our SunFrost frig the electric bill took a big nose-dive.
Where there is a will to do good (or reduce bad) God will show the way.
Now that’s one hell of a bold proclamation…don’t you think? How in the world could you ever come to this assumption? Is this Church teaching? Is this in the CCC? And who are you trying to win over with this attitude? I realize that some recent Popes have voiced concerns about global warming, but saying you’re damned if you are skeptical? In my opinion, I think some of this “alarmist” thinking borders on idolatry in some respects, in that they put the environment before God and cast judgements on those who they think are not “up to snuff.” It gets to the point of obsession. The environment consumes their very being and becomes their god! And their whole attitude about this, and their judgementalism becomes very troubling to me, and quite disturbing indeed!..Just some of my thoughts.