Laudato Si – a cry for the poor

This guest post, by Joe Ronan, is about the papal encyclical Laudato Si.

Why is Pope Francis writing about climate change? Because he cares for the poor, and wants us all to look at how we use the resources of the world. His objective is to ask each of us to look at how we use the resources available to us, and how to be good stewards of creation. Whether we consider ourselves as owners or tenants of this planet we are asked to use it's bounty to the good of all, and to avoid laying it waste to the detriment of our brothers and sisters.

He looks at a number of ways in which the poor more than most suffer from environmental damage that man has control over. The first thing he mentions (paragraph 20) is something well aired on these blogs: atmospheric pollutants affecting the poor, using as an example the breathing high levels of smoke from fuels used in heating and cooking. He talks of pollution caused by transport and industry, soil, fertilizers and insecticides. Then he mentions dangerous wastes and residues and the despoiling of landscapes. Again, his concern is primarily for the people these affect, and secondarily for the ecosystem (though he stresses our responsibility for that too).

The climate comes in at paragraph 23 and here the leaked paragraphs that have had such wide coverage are reasonably accurate. Climate is a common good, and science indicates that man is having some effect on this. The language is sufficiently vague that I doubt he'll end up in a Galileo scenario of pinning his colours to a sinking ship, but there is no doubt that the rather partial advisers he has had have coloured the thinking to a very large extent. Paragraph 24 provides perhaps the most obvious slip up, when it suggests “If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us”. There is no inkling that the pause has been mentioned to the Vatican, or that Pope Francis is familiar with the now infamous twitter exchange where Naomi Oreskes is denying the pause to Doug MacNeal.

The biggest disappointment with this section is how poorly it is referenced. Not even the IPCC is mentioned. Many of the statements should be backed up by source or attribution, but there is none. When the document moves into moral territory there are comprehensive references, so I see this as a real naivete on behalf of the drafters.

Climate change is called a global problem and “one of the principal challenges facing humanity” (25), not the greatest challenge as I've seen reported in some places. The concern though is not for the planet per se but for the people, and particularly the poor. That the poor are by their poverty more heavily affected by natural disasters, and by manmade damage to the environment is a concern that I think we can all get behind.

The letter also dwells on the related but separate issue of water resources, and the necessity of the provision of clean water. The effects of dysentery and cholera, inadequate hygiene and many other factors are mentioned (29).

He looks at loss of biodiversity, and at some length on the quality of human life and societal breakdown. (43 onwards). This is definitely not a “climate change” encyclical, it deals with much wider questions.

Where the letter becomes really interesting is when it develops themes of how we approach the problems of inequality and systems of politics, economics and governance.

Paragraph 129 seeks to promote an economy that favours production diversity and business creativity. I don't see Jeb Bush having a problem with that!

Business is a noble vocation (129) ...directed to improving the world.

There is throughout an antagonism to untrammelled markets, especially for global business that appear to ignore national rules and suit themselves. It does however recognise the impossibility of regulating for all possible events, and instead asks for the growth of inner morality – we should know when what we do will harm our fellow men, and we should know to avoid that without being policed.

I think many will read paragraph 182 with a rather different focus that may have been meant in it's writing:

[182] Forms of corruption that conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.

and again in 183

...fully informed about projects and their different risks. Honesty and truth are needed in scientific and political decisions...

184 continues the theme with “decisions must me made based on a comparison of the risks and benefits forseen for the various possible alternatives. Matt Ridley, and Bjorn Lomborg will enjoy that bit, and the following request for proper analysis of the costs and on whom they fall.

There is acknowldgement that achieving a broad consensus on policy is not easy, but we are encouraged to have an honest and open debate so that “particular interests or ideologies will not predjudice the common good”. I think we can all say 'Amen' to that.

There is a pretty strong attack on the way the banks were bailed out at the expense of the people, and a concern with the centralisation of financial and economic power (189).

The idea of a limit to growth is put forward, and here I think the document fails for lack of reference and a fallback to assertion. The assumption is that there is a zero sum game, and I would not agree that history shows that to be the case.

Politics and economics with their blame passing and corruption are given a going over (198) but science is also said to be powerless if it loses its moral compass. (199).

Throughout the later sections the document is asking for dialogue; how do we protect nature, defend the poor and build networks of respect and fraternity. Open and respectful dialogue is what we need not idealogical warfare.

I would encourage you all to read the final section, even those of you not of a religious inclination. It deals with releasing real humanity from within ourselves, and perhaps is the type of writing that reflects most closely Francis' agenda – the best flourishing of the human person, and the building of a good society. He recognises that the things that we do to 'save the earth' will not change the world, but will call forth from us each “a goodness that spreads”.

It is also a call to joy and completeness as humans, and a call to engage with those around us.

This is a flawed document in many ways: it has had input from a limited range of views, and on the technical side is badly referenced. It paints complex issues in simplistic terms and ignores the whole history of how technological development has been of enormous benefit to mankind.

What it does succeed in doing however is to provoke each of us to consider inside ourselves how we relate to our fellow travellers on this planet. Even though the letter is addressed to the whole world, it's real target is you. I recommend it to you all, flawed and incomplete as it is, as a look into our own minds, and invites us to consider again our common humanity.

Comments

[ferdinand]

A good summary and a sensible comment.

[cjcjc]

One might take the Pope's supposed concern for the poor a little more seriously were he to change his teaching on contraception...

[michael hart]

The BBC, peace be upon them, just went straight for the headline "Pope calls for end to fossil fuels".

They showed a photograph of said Pope, kissing a baby. This is on the the main "Science" page of the BBC website.

[Joe Public]

"The biggest disappointment with this section is how poorly it is referenced."

Surely, the Pope speaks for God.

[Joe Ronan]

cjcjc - Have a look at paragraph 50 which covers the issue of population.

Joe Ronan (aka Cumbrian Lad)

[golf charlie]

Science is useless without a moral compass.

I don't know how much that is a paraphrase of a translation, but climate science's moral compass, has built in devious deviation, no wonder it is has gone so far off course.

[M Courtney]

From Laudato Si, it's not all bad:

49. It needs to be said that, generally speaking, there is little in the way of clear awareness of problems which especially affect the excluded. Yet they are the majority of the planet’s population, billions of people. These days, they are mentioned in international political and economic discussions, but one often has the impression that their problems are brought up as an afterthought, a question which gets added almost out of duty or in a tangential way, if not treated merely as collateral damage. Indeed, when all is said and done, they frequently remain at the bottom of the pile. This is due partly to the fact that many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems. They live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the majority of the world’s population. This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality. At times this attitude exists side by side with a “green” rhetoric. Today, however, we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.

Sounds a bit like they listened to Heartland.

[M Courtney]

Sorry, I'm going to thread bomb my noted thoughts having read the encyclical.

60. Finally, we need to acknowledge that different approaches and lines of thought have emerged regarding this situation and its possible solutions. At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited. Viable future scenarios will have to be generated between these extremes, since there is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions.

So no more screams of Denier then. The Pope says you have to listen to those who suggest different views. I’m going to be quoting this when the doom-mongers try to shout down debate. We now have Papal authority to challenge the BBC on their interview policy.

[M Courtney]

84. Our insistence that each human being is an image of God should not make us overlook the fact that each creature has its own purpose. None is superfluous.

The Catholic Church still has trouble with evolution then, if you think about it.

[M Courtney]

115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere space into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference”. The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised.

I take it this a translation error as the Catholic Church has not traditionally been Pantheist, imbuing nature with personal attributes like “dignity”.

[M Courtney]

And this is disappointingly Luddite:

128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. Yet the orientation of the economy has favoured a kind of technological progress in which the costs of production are reduced by laying off workers and replacing them with machines. This is yet another way in which we can end up working against ourselves. The loss of jobs also has a negative impact on the economy “through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence”. In other words, “human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs”. To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.

Fear the Robots because they replace workers. If it was because they could be used as weapons I’d agree but this ignores creative destruction.

[M Courtney]

210. Environmental education has broadened its goals. Whereas in the beginning it was mainly centred on scientific information, consciousness-raising and the prevention of environmental risks, it tends now to include a critique of the “myths” of a modernity grounded in a utilitarian mindset (individualism, unlimited progress, competition, consumerism, the unregulated market). It seeks also to restore the various levels of ecological equilibrium, establishing harmony within ourselves, with others, with nature and other living creatures, and with God. Environmental education should facilitate making the leap towards the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning. It needs educators capable of developing an ethics of ecology, and helping people, through effective pedagogy, to grow in solidarity, responsibility and compassionate care.

So Green is a religion and the pope wants to merge with it.

[Paul Matthews]

" Why is Pope Francis writing about climate change? "

He isn't really. Apart from the few paragraphs highlighted, most of the document is about pollution, waste, consumerism, inequality, water, what the bible says, technology, development, ethics, GM, ecology, poverty, dialogue, politics, biodiversity, and then more religious waffle at the end.

MC, yes para 60 is interesting, as is the following para 61:

On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.

I bet that won't be quoted by the likes of Harrabin, RTCC and Carbon Brief. See also para 188 that says much the same thing.

[Mike Jackson]

I agree with Joe though he has obviously had more time this morning to study the full text than I have.
There is little to disagree with in His Holiness' remarks about the "throwaway" culture (my description rather than his) and the need to reduce pollution but his reference to
...a disturbing warming of the climatic system ... accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events"
"melting in the polar ice caps ... can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas,
"...the acidification of the oceans ...
"...this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems..."
"... a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation"
and most especially
"... urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced," (my emphasis)
all suggest that he has been fed the warmist line and has, for whatever reason, not taken the trouble to consider the alternatives.
He also seems unaware, which I find surprising, that the 'cures' proposed by climate activists represent the least likely route to alleviating the current condition of the poor and the least likely to enable them to cope with the disasters that he claims are in store if those same activists are to be believed.
Likewise there is nothing in this section that suggests that His Holiness considers the actions of dictators and war to be especially relevant to migration, though he does make a point later in a different context.
The fact that the environment is "first up" is a pity because it means that many people will not read the later parts (as Joe says, do read the final section; in fact I would urge people to read all of it!) and will be confirmed in their beliefs on climate. Indeed, I suspect that a lot of people on both sides of the debate will read the relevant paragraphs and say "well, we/they got him on our/their side then" and ignore the parts where he is a little more sceptical about some of the actions being taken.
All in all, Catholics will find some hard lessons in this but as far as the climate debate is concerned this is no game changer.

[Harry Passfield]

Our insistence that each human being is an image of God

I guess He must be OK with evolution (pace M Courtney) otherwise God would look Cro-magnon - at some time. /s

[jamspid]

"and ignores the whole history of how technological development has been of enormous benefit to mankind".

and Fossil Fuel.

[golf charlie]

It would be easier for Al Gore to pass through the eye of a needle, if he gave his money to the poor people he has exploited without a shadow of guilt.

If Jesus threw the bankers out of the Temple, why has the Pope invited con artists into the Vatican?

[cjcjc]

I wouldn't say that Para 50 exactly "covers the issue of population" though it is rather hard to determine exactly what it is trying to say...

[stewgreen]

Bottomline #1 : It's NOT ABOUT climate, actually...Greenblob has cheated once again.
That's what their 'selective leak stunt' was about..so beforehand they hype up their FRAMING of the encyclical as being being about climate. Yet when anyone reads it they find it is only a minor section.
#2 The Pope calls for listening to all sides, not just green bullies.
#3 He mentions that as I paraphrase and quote : 'smug affluent influencials' "neglect parts of reality" and go "with a 'green' rhetoric"
#4 Hopefully someone is going to tell us what he says in part 50..Is it as @cjcjc surmises "One might take the Pope's supposed concern for the poor a little more seriously were he to change his teaching on contraception." ?

[M Courtney]

Stewgreen, here:

50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. Besides, we know that approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and ‘whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor”. Still, attention needs to be paid to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels, since a rise in consumption would lead to complex regional situations, as a result of the interplay between problems linked to environmental pollution, transport, waste treatment, loss of resources and quality of life.

It seems coherent.
If not necessarily correct.

[golf charlie]

Stewgreen, who would have thought the GreenBlob would distort the Pope's word to suit their greed? It is about as dumb as a parasite eating its host, guaranteed extinction unless another fatted calf is prepared.

The GreenBlob has eaten through donations, taxation, blackmail money, guilt money, and is now viewing with greed the fat wealth of the Catholic church.

[omnologos]

How long before it will be forgotten, and replaced on the alarmist media waves by latest latest fad?

As per my first impression...it is a damp squib. This was supposed to change the climate debate. Does anybody still believe it will?

Where is the excommunication of skeptics, where is the denouncing of deniers, what part of the Letter deals with the upcoming Paris meeting.

[Harry Dale Huffman]

The Pope has not taken the trouble to inform himself of the true situation, and so is just another incompetent, activist leader, chasing windmills (metaphorically, like Don Quixote--a good archetype for the climate alarmists and the Insane Left generally--and in actual fact today). At best, he is just another concerned citizen who doesn't know the first thing of what he is talking about. Anyone who consider his view as educated or wise, much less authoritative, is deluded by their unquestioned dogma--kind of like those Muslims who want to force sharia law on everyone (and my response to that is a worldwide ban on religious coercion of "unbelievers", also known as "deniers").

Of course, he is no worse any other believer in today's "climate science", which is a cruel, and soon to be tragic, joke on this generation and those following that will suffer from it.

[shub]

There's a reason why the climate parts lack references. They are full of s****. If referenced, you'd have them picked clean to the bones because the citations won't support the claims, whereas this way people will have to contend with the authority of a papal document (if there's any).

[Mike Jackson]

Let us get one thing clear.
The Pope cannot change "his" teaching on contraception because it is not "his" to change.
The Church has taught from the beginning that sex, whatever may be its side benefits, is primarily intended for the purpose of procreation and is not to be used purely as an instrument of personal pleasure.
With that goes a very large number of other moral and behavioural habits and taboos which Catholics used to understand and accept in principle even where they may have disobeyed them (we all being sinners and susceptible to temptations; none of us is perfect).
Hence according to Church teaching the sexual act is something to be carried on (1) between a man and a woman, (2) within the bond of marriage, and (3) it must be "open to" the possibility of conception, or put another way there must be no deliberate attempt to frustrate the possibility of conception.
You can argue any "exception" to that you like; "whataboutery" can be a fun game, but that is the immutable teaching of the Church and Francis is not about to change it to suit anyone.
In any case the argument about contraception is a red herring.
The earth is perfectly capable of sustaining a considerably larger population than it is carrying at the moment especially if we use the technology we have to bring arid areas under cultivation and if we stop growing fuel and grow food instead.
The UN itself admits that the world population will peak about the middle of the century at ~10 billion and thereafter will decline. Some say it will decline to around 6 billion which is going to leave an awful lot of the currently inhabited areas looking a bit sparse — which ought to please the Greenies but probably won't.
The best, most reliable and known-to-be-successful way of reducing the birthrate is to make poor people better off and that we could also do if we had the will to do so. Whether that reduction is due to increased use of contraception I wouldn't know and neither does the Pope and I'm prepared to bet he's not about to ask because at the end of the day the decision as to whether to commit a "sin" (if you believe it to be one) is your own. All the Church can do is point you in the right direction and be there to forgive you when your conscience kicks in!
And if you don't believe any of this then that also is a decision you make. Just don't assume that because you don't believe it is necessarily wrong. Time will prove you right or wrong as it will those who do believe.

[jorgekafkazar]

"...concern with the centralisation of financial and economic power (189)..."

But the Church at large is all about the centralization of power. "All power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely," was said of the Roman Catholic Church by Lord Acton.

The Encyclical appears to attempt to be, like Paul, "All things to all people." Its uncritical repetition of AGW cant makes it a fine weapon for the Green Blob, which will feel free to ignore in toto the few inclusive paragraphs.

[Bad Andrew]

"How long before it will be forgotten, and replaced on the alarmist media waves by latest latest fad?"

omnologos,

This is my take on it too. As propaganda, it's not going to be very good for very long. If people aren't presented with a constant barrage of climate crisis hype, they'll forget it's supposed to exist. This is one brick in the wall as climate hype goes. Soon to be swamped under with the usual daily noise.

Andrew

[PJ]

"One might take the Pope's supposed concern for the poor a little more seriously were he to change his teaching on contraception..."

Blaming poverty on fertile sex, let alone on more people, is like blaming a hurricane on man-made global warming.

You could rather observe the converse - when population was tiny, in the stone age, man was poor. Now we have 7 billion and are richer than ever. More people creates prosperity. QED.

[Dung]

Just why exactly is anyone concerned about what the pope thinks?
Why did the his grace start this thread when it contains an infinite number of individual issues and only a fraction of them will get discussed and even then there can be no agreement.
I would give this thread no greater credence if it was claimed that god himself had written it, I grew out of fairy stories when I was a minor.
The problem of course is that many followers of Bishop Hill are religious and so I insult them by giving my opinions (this is a really dumb thread).
The poor; what is poor, it changes depending upon when you were born, where you live and stupidly apparently on how rich are your peers? The definition of poor will continue to change and we will all continue to be asked to give loads 'o money to eradicate this state of being even as 'the poor' get richer. In effect 'help the poor' means try and make people equal and that is impossible.

[Mike Jackson]

omnologos
The other thing to consider is that only a minority within the Church will read this encyclical (which I think is a pity because there is some good stuff in it for believers and non-believers alike). Most will read the headlines in their favourite paper or on their favourite news programme and will have whatever they believe on climate change confirmed because that is the way they will spin it. It will make a useful footnote for the warmists at Paris. Maybe. But since it doesn't look as if anybody who knows anything is expecting Paris to produce anything useful, who cares?
And if my local bishop issues a Pastoral Letter ordering us all to believe in global warming then we will happily sleep through that one as we do through most of them.
(Though come to think of it, diocesan pastoral letters appear to be a thing of the past, at least here in France).

[golf charlie]

Can we expect the Grauniad to be urging police to bring criminal proceedings against whoever hacked the Popes Encyclical, now they know it does not contain exactly what they forecast? Or are past misdeeds not the same as statements of intent in the Church of Global Warming?

[Paul Matthews]

Even the Catholic Herald is not impressed/convinced:
Pope Francis is unduly pessimistic about the world.

omnologos is quite right with his original "damp squib" statement. I suspect that behind the scenes, climate activists are disappointed. Doubtless some of them will twist, spin and misrepresent his words though.

[TomRude]

So much for science!
To have those supposedly scientific minds expose their inability to demonstrate their theory dangling a religious figure in order to shut down science is priceless acknowledgement of failure.
It is also hilarious to read comments by all those condemning political leaders for their religious links suddenly embrace another religious figure, just because this time it fits their own prejudices.
Ridiculae!

[Curious George]

It is an encyclical - a work of the Church, do not mistake it for a work of science. I don't intend to read it in its entirety, but excerpts that I have seen are surprisingly good.

[michael hart]

Dung, rest assured I have not the slightest interest in what the Pope thinks about global warming. I'll do my own thinking on that matter.

But I do find it interesting, amusing even, that his advisers have persuaded him to jump on the green caring-sharing bandwagon at this rather late stage. I interpret it as an attempt to keep themselves relevant, probably with "the kids" (aka "hey, those greens are trying to eat our lunch").

As noted up-thread I am also interested, though not even outraged any more, that the BBC chooses to headline the issue on its science page. That the enviro-political activists at the BBC think their own political interpretations of a religious leader's marketing opinions should be presented as science deserves a prize. Whether a prize for stupidity or audacity, I am not sure. It certainly shows the lengths the supposedly impartial national broadcaster will go to in pursuit of an agenda.

[Bad Andrew]

My take as a practicing Catholic who is interested in science and politics, I'm not surprised Pope Francis caved to what I think is political pressure in presenting this encyclical. Popes make errors. Popes can be coerced. This is history. There really is nothing new here in the encyclical or the circumstances surrounding it. I respect the Pope on a personal level and he does have some good things to say about many issues. Climate is not one of them. He really just stepped in it.

My hope is this ridiculous episode will fade away shortly.

"Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer." -Romans

Andrew

[diogenese2]

Joe Public @ 1.31: It was not naïve to omit references from para. 23, a reference acknowledges a higher authority to whom you defer, as Shrub points out @3.55.
M.Courtney para.128 thrust "Arbeit Macht Frei " into my mind and I did not read on. You are right about para 210.
Poor Francis, the whole world is meeting to discuss the greatest threat to the future of the planet and he is not invited as he is not (cannot be) a party to the UNFCCC. It is ironic that, denouncing Carbon credit Trading as equating to the Sale of Indulgences, he still finds that the church must purchase an indulgence from the unbelievers. But the only penance in his "Raccolta" is "freely giving open witness to ones faith before others". So he has added two lines to the Credo; "We believe that fossil fuel use is destroying Gods Earth" and "We believe renewable sources can and should replace them". Thus the shepherd endorses the process which will decimate his flock and the people will die for the sins of the new messiah. It is a Marxist parody of the Vicarious Atonement - for sinners Mercy - without Justice, but for the righteous Justice- without Mercy.

[Ivor Ward]

There are an estimated 1.2 billion catholics in the World. 40% in South America, mostly Brazil, and 23% in Europe, mostly Italy. They have virtually no representation in India or China. So I don't think Putin, Modi, Xi Jinping, Hassan Rohani, or the boss of Isis are going to care very much what an old bloke from South America has to say.

Francis needs a course on concise writing. Most is drivel padded out with platitudes.

[Skiphil]

The issue is not whether any of us cares about what the Pope writes on these subjects (I don't), but how this document is used as one more propaganda bludgeon to try to influence the public debates. It is in fact quite amusing to see all the churnalists and propagandists who are suddenly entranced with the Pope's opinions, even though they would never care one bit for the Pope's opinions on many other subjects.

[chris y]

diogenese2-

"We believe that fossil fuel use is destroying Gods Earth" and "We believe renewable sources can and should replace them".

This phrasing creates a strange disconnect commonly found in Green propaganda.
God-given fossil fuels are part of God's Earth.
Fossil fuels are organic and completely natural. Fracked oil and natural gas can be locally harvested as well :-)

[Arthur Peacock]

Evidently nobody warned the Pope that the climate issue is a political minefield, not to be lightly or wantonly entered upon. Otherwise, he would probably have had the sense to avoid the issue altogether. His encyclical would then have been ignored rather than misrepresented.

So, one more great institution falls victim to the climatic pons asinorum.

[omnologos]

Michael Hart -I'll steal that one

Impressive critique by Catholic Herald. I can just imagine the amount of Vatican sulking behind Francis' unwise economics. Quite a change from Ratzinger's intellectual prowess.

[TomO]

Grabbing these three comments above -

"“If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us”.

The biggest disappointment with this section is how poorly it is referenced. Not even the IPCC is mentioned.

Climate change is called a global problem and “one of the principal challenges facing humanity”"

By the middle comment, the author refers to the fact that there are no references, but by these two other undeniably cherry picked points - mine, not the author's - they cover both global warming and global cooling, both of which have been attributed, at least in part at one time or another, to man. But most assuredly, if the current trend towards cooling and a colder climate continues, climate will, indeed be one of the principal challenges facing humanity.

[Martin Brumby]

Does he address the obvious wickedness of campaigning against Golden Rice?
This might be a touchstone for the entire project.

[Gamecock]

"That the poor are by their poverty more heavily affected by natural disasters, and by manmade damage to the environment is a concern that I think we can all get behind."

The solution to poverty is long known: free trade and property rights. Crying about poverty, instead of rectifying it, is sinful.

[Joe Ronan (aka Cumbrian Lad)]

Martin, the GM issue is addressed in paragraphs 130 to 136. Interestingly those paras are written a lot more circumspectly than the ones on climate change.

[Harry Passfield]

On a (OK, my) philosophical level, global warming should be no concern of the Pope. As Christ's vicar on Earth (or is it God's vicar?) he represents, surely, the word of God and the will of His omnipotent being. So surely, the Pope has only to believe that his benevolent God will never allow His world to suffer the calamities of global warming. As such, The Pope will know that He will see to it that all will come right in the end for the sake of His flock. If the Third World is so impoverished I am sure that the Pope's God will provide - unless sinning man gets in the way and prevents the poor from accessing cheap and abundant power - which He, surely, provided to the world.

This religion thing can really screw with your head...

[michael hart]

Feel free, omnologos. Remember, this what Phil Jones doesn't like about the internet.

[Billy Liar]

128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work.

It's quite obvious that Pope Francis sees windmill maintenance and solar panel washing as endless work for the poor. In that he is spot on.

[timg56]

Excellent summary Joe.

And a great comment from Mike Jackson at 3:58.

Some of the others, not so much.