Vatican Compares Trump To Flat-Earthers Over His Climate Agreement Withdrawal

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomuser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

randomuser

Guest
Vatican Compares Trump To Flat-Earthers Over His Climate Agreement Withdrawal

*The decision has even drawn the wrath of the Vatican, which Trump visited just last week. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, made his critical remarks known in an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

“Thinking that we need and must rely on coal and oil is like claiming that the Earth is not round. It’s an absurdity brought forward only to make money,” Sanchez Sorondo stated. “I believe that oil lobbyists are behind this decision. They are pushing for it. Big oil is pulling Trump’s strings and he can’t oppose them, although this doesn’t mean he wants to.”*
iflscience.com/environment/vatican-compares-trump-to-flatearthers-over-his-climate-agreement-withdrawl/
 
catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/bishops-urge-trump-to-honor-paris-climate-pact-to-protect-the-planet.cfm
“Pope Francis and the Holy See have also consistently voiced support for the Paris agreement,” Bishop Cantu said. In his earlier June 1 statement, Bishop Cantu said the pope’s 2015 encyclical “Laudato Si’, on Care for Our Common Home” was timed “to urge the nations of the world to work together in Paris for an agreement that protects our people and our planet.”
Click to expand...
 
Trump left the door open to work out the Paris accords into a treaty, it was rejected out of hand. No one has said the US won’t work to reduce pollution, we just won’t foot the bill for it.
 
Crusaderbear said:
Trump left the door open to work out the Paris accords into a treaty, it was rejected out of hand. No one has said the US won’t work to reduce pollution, we just won’t foot the bill for it.
Click to expand...
I wish someone discussed the ultimate bill.
 
Crusaderbear said:
Trump left the door open to work out the Paris accords into a treaty, it was rejected out of hand. No one has said the US won’t work to reduce pollution, we just won’t foot the bill for it.
Click to expand...
But we will still foot the bill for his weekly golf trips to Mar–a-Lago.

Well, that seems fair. :ouch:
 
This Paris agreement would have devastated our economy and likely raised the cost of utilities, hurting, you guessed it, THE POOR.
 
If this is the response, then it is safe to say that Trump did the right thing.

*“Thinking that we need and must rely on coal and oil is like claiming that the Earth is not round. It’s an absurdity brought forward only to make money,” *

Perhaps the good bishop can suggest what energy means, other than coal and especially oil, is more plentiful, more efficient, more clean and cheaper to consumers. And as far as absurdities just to make money, how many billions did President Obama give to ''alternative energy companies" that produced nothing and ended up going bankrupt?
 
jediliz said:
This Paris agreement would have devastated our economy and likely raised the cost of utilities, hurting, you guessed it, THE POOR.
Click to expand...
Bingo. If industrial nations are so worried about alleged climate change, then why is it the US that has to take the lead in everything while countries like China and India don’t?
 
jediliz said:
This Paris agreement would have devastated our economy and likely raised the cost of utilities, hurting, you guessed it, THE POOR.
Click to expand...
Can you please link to some decent source that looks at the costs vs benefits to the US and others of the Paris agreement?
 
The thing I never got is that people in this country seem to be under the assumption that we should just burn away fossil fuels as if there is no finite limit to them; especially easy to get ones. We **know **the process of getting them in themselves causes environmental damage.

Renewables also have a long term upside of making us independent of some less than savory regimes. We spend great amounts of money on foreign entanglements and erode our best nature because of them.

Why not try to perfect renewables while fossil fuels are still inexpensive? The Chinese are going headlong into making renewables cheaper and the shear size of their economy will provide a ready market for these products. Yes I’m aware that there are accusations of them misrepresenting their current emissions to reduce their commitment, but they have still committed and we believe we are some great exception. They have notoriously bad air pollution in their large cities…they still have great incentive to reduce their emissions.

It’s time for this country to get its head out of the ground. Clinging to American exceptionalism is the sign of an empire in decline. In our empire we have a sprawling military making the “world safe for democracy”, which really means bending the world to our wants under the guise of this.

Our wants in this case should be the rest of the world’s. Why? Because this world is too interlocked to not participate. Investors may and/or will have demands for environmental change factored into their risk profiles. Companies often make products for a world market. Few of them would want to make separate products that pollute more just for the American Market, simply on cost requirements alone. The Paris Accords are often already built into our companies’ long term plans anyway. Our “Negotiator” in Chief is fooling himself.
 
PJH_74 said:
Why not try to perfect renewables while fossil fuels are still inexpensive?
Click to expand...
They’ve been trying for the past 20 years with little success. There’s a reason why. This country alone is sitting on billions of barrels of oil. It is incomprehensible why one would want to abandon that means of providing energy when it is the most plentiful, efficient and cheapest by far of any of the “renewables” that we have now. Renewables are a pipe dream anyway. Wind farming is far too expensive. Solar panels are way too inefficient. We’ve been having rain and cloudy skies for the past 10-12 days; how would solar panels fare under such conditions? How plentiful will solar be in winter with its grey, cloudy skies?
 
randomuser said:
Vatican Compares Trump To Flat-Earthers Over His Climate Agreement Withdrawal

*The decision has even drawn the wrath of the Vatican, which Trump visited just last week. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, made his critical remarks known in an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

“Thinking that we need and must rely on coal and oil is like claiming that the Earth is not round. It’s an absurdity brought forward only to make money,” Sanchez Sorondo stated. “I believe that oil lobbyists are behind this decision. They are pushing for it. Big oil is pulling Trump’s strings and he can’t oppose them, although this doesn’t mean he wants to.”*
iflscience.com/environment/vatican-compares-trump-to-flatearthers-over-his-climate-agreement-withdrawl/
Click to expand...
This response is not “the Vatican”. It is a personal opinion offered by someone who works there, worthy of consideration. My own personal opinion is that President Trump may be wrong in this matter, but I am not fully informed nor an expert.

My bigger concern is the lesson from “the boy who cried wolf”.

that the media uses statements from “the Church” , whether it be a committee of US bishops, an employee of the Vatican, etc, about Trump, or others, to dilute the impact of the Church’s genuine authority. The Church does claim the authority to define certain things (legal abortion, legal same sex marriage, and others) as inherently evil.

They fall within the Church’s expertise of faith and morals. They have a proven impact on huge numbers of people. There is no question that tens of millions of babies have been slaughtered.

There are other things, like climate change, where the Church does not claim special expertise, other than to urge people towards good citizenship and stewardship for the planet. But there are not tens of millions of people slaughtered due to the failure of the US to fully cooperate with some international pact. No politician is actively promoting pollution. But the media will put the statements like this on a level with the Church’s teaching on abortion.

When I was in 8th grade, the health teacher gave “good posture” and a dozen other health choices the same level of urgency as smoking cigarettes. Every issue got equal time. Do you think that was prudent?
 
Tim_D said:
They’ve been trying for the past 20 years with little success. There’s a reason why. This country alone is sitting on billions of barrels of oil. It is incomprehensible why one would want to abandon that means of providing energy when it is the most plentiful, efficient and cheapest by far of any of the “renewables” that we have now. Renewables are a pipe dream anyway. Wind farming is far too expensive. Solar panels are way too inefficient. We’ve been having rain and cloudy skies for the past 10-12 days; how would solar panels fare under such conditions? How plentiful will solar be in winter with its grey, cloudy skies?
Click to expand...
Straight to my point about trying to focus more on developing them. Just because we have fossil fuels does not mean we will have clean air and water or a back up
Tim_D said:
Every time you flush your toilet you are creating an environmental impact.
Click to expand...
Sure…but not having a sewage system causes why more damage and is the leading cause of death and disease in the developing world.
 
Here’s my problem with the Paris Climate Agreement
$100 Billion
“To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year,” NPR’s Christopher Joyce reports.
Click to expand...
But that amount is identified as a “floor,” not a ceiling.
Click to expand...
“Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years,” he explains, “so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time.”
Click to expand...
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord
Click to expand...
Just like the Kyoto agreement which China signed, but ignored because they consider themselves a developing nation, they would’ve ignored the Parish Agreement as well.

That all being said, until Trump became president, the US was already ahead of the changes called for in Paris.

However, Trump has been dismantling all the environmental protections President Obama had put in place. Not because those agreements were wrong, but because they were part of President Obama’s legacy which Donald Trump and the GOP leaders in Congress are determined to destroy.

Jim
 
Tim_D said:
If this is the response, then it is safe to say that Trump did the right thing.

*“Thinking that we need and must rely on coal and oil is like claiming that the Earth is not round. It’s an absurdity brought forward only to make money,” *

Perhaps the good bishop can suggest what energy means, other than coal and especially oil, is more plentiful, more efficient, more clean and cheaper to consumers. And as far as absurdities just to make money, how many billions did President Obama give to ''alternative energy companies" that produced nothing and ended up going bankrupt?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Tim_D said:
If this is the response, then it is safe to say that Trump did the right thing.

*“Thinking that we need and must rely on coal and oil is like claiming that the Earth is not round. It’s an absurdity brought forward only to make money,” *

Perhaps the good bishop can suggest what energy means, other than coal and especially oil, is more plentiful, more efficient, more clean and cheaper to consumers. And as far as absurdities just to make money, how many billions did President Obama give to ''alternative energy companies" that produced nothing and ended up going bankrupt?
Click to expand...
The logic in your argument leaves everything to be desired.
 
Here are a few sobering thoughts. Before the Industrial Revolution, there were but one billion people on Earth. Now, there are seven times as many to give glory to God.

Adequate alternative sources of energy do not presently exist to meet world-wide needs. Scientists who descent from theoretical prognostications posed by well-funded alarmists are routinely denounced and suppressed.

Even if we were to accept rather dubious claims by alarmists, this costly to us treaty, and yes it is a treaty - please wake up US Senate - would accomplish quite next to nothing in terms of carbon, while energy costs here would increase to the detriment of many ordinary working people.

Interestingly, about twenty years ago, Jacque Chirac said this is all about “global governance”. Think about that.
 
dvdjs said:
The logic in your argument leaves everything to be desired.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see;

Petroleum based energy is plentiful, efficient, clean and cheap.

Renewable based energy is not plentiful, is not efficient, it IS clean but it is not cheap.

The past 20-30 years of renewable energy development has not produced anything worth considering in replacing petroleum-based energy. Looking to the future, what means can be employed to replace the plentiful, clean, cheap and efficient supply of our current energy demands? Logic would require that one produce a realistic alternative. So where, then, is this alternative? The bishop doesn’t have it. Do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top