Bishop Hill Laudato Si – a cry for the poor
Jun 18, 2015 Climate: WG3 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.
Reader Comments (76)
"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."
Having read through most of this, some enlightened, some of it repeating basic environmental cant, some of it a worrisome trend of catholic 'social justice', but a few striking elements. Some thoughts:
0. The thing is LONG.
1. Holistic emphasis - this is NOT a 'climate change' encyclical, but rather Pope Francis recalls St francis and wants holistic respect for our planet earth as well as our fellow human. He sees man as connected to all others, both other men and women, and God, and God's creation. This is a far cry from Gaia Earth type thinking, despite the 'mother earth' and 'sister moon' quotes.
2. Attacks on consumerism and the wealthy part of the world, in not just depradations of environment, but claims of how it harms the poor of the world and assertions of the harm that the poor endure due to various aspects of modernism.
3. His statements on environment wrt climate are nothing new. And he mentions pollution, lack of access to drinking water, crowded cities, etc. Mostly he attacks the *waste* of consumerism. some verbiage reminds me of the old-style 70s environmentalism, with talks of rubbish, foul air, and crowded slums. He notes many aspects of harm of industrialization on people, eg, suphur dioxide from copper mining, perhaps something a south american would be familiar with. Notably absent was talk of end of resources.
4. He distrusts market economics and capitalism. This is not new and a bit disturbing, what is new and even more disturbing is his distrust of technocratic solutions. This could be seen as wise on the level that he is bringing the church's perspective that all actions must have moral basis, so you cannot solve problems disconnected from moral action. But it can also be seen as his fundamental error - it is free markets and new technology that will yield the solutions not just to climate disruption or environmental degradation, but also poverty.
4b. For example: He talks disparagingly of agricultural changes wherein monocrop culture displaces small-plot farmers. And yet, that trend is what raises crop yields and farm productivity. Its how 2% of Americans can feed the other 98%. It's simply wrong to assert that technology cannot solve the problems of its own making. For example, GMOs have issues but can be a path to feeding the world better. The implications of his words are that path is no solution.
4c.
5. Attacks on environmentalists that disregard the place of mankind, and he properly points out that disregarding the earth is one extreme (anthropocentrism) but disregarding man is another extreme.
6. He sees cultural and social preservation and conservation as something that has importance alongside environmental conservation. Saying indigenous species but disregarding indigenous peoples is wrong. He attacks building new cities that topple old structures. There's a lot of wisdom in that line of thinking. At the same time, he notes the need for labor and concern for economic disruption. he sees all these things as connected, and while they are, it turns the encyclical into a 'grab bag' of concern for many issues. How to untangle?
7. I think Lomberg and those type pointing out the imbalance of climate change alarmism might be pleased - he appeals for the need of the poor for housing, mentions the crisis of lack of drinking water, is dismayed at crowded slums, pointing out how wealthy societies have carved out ecological refuges while the poor have no such refuge from blight and pollution. Most importantly, he is saying that we need to have concern and poverty eradication is a concern on par with climate change. It's a welcome change from climate monomania.
8. He repeats, in a shallow way, with not much substance or support, the main tenets of the UN IPCC view on climate change, including "catastrophe" and "urgent action needed". There are enough quotes for the alarmists to run with, and they'll ignore the 90% of this that has nothing to do with climate change.
9. It's notable how LITTLE science there is, but then perhaps that is deliberate aspect of this being a moral, spiritual and ethical treatise. He simply derfers to the 'experts'.
10. For good or bad, Pope Francis has yoked environmental concerns with 'social justice' concerns. The practical impact is that we now have a Pope telling us that good Christian would be environmentally concious. I sure hope they are doing the recycling in the vatican.
11. The pope's distrust in technocratic solutions is unwise, but his distrust in financial engineering solutions like climate trading may be the flipside of that. His concern is that we cant paper over a real problem with a few superficial answers that may cause other problems.
The Pope is preaching not science, but a change of heart: "We are speaking of an attitude of the heart, one which approaches life with serene attentiveness, which is capable of being fully present to someone without thinking of what comes next, which accepts each moment as a gift from God to be lived to the full. Jesus taught us this attitude when he invited us to contemplate the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, or when seeing the rich young man and knowing his restlessness, “he looked at him with love”
(Mk 10:21). He was completely present to everyone and to everything, and in this way he showed us the way to overcome that unhealthy anxiety which makes us superficial, aggressive and compulsive consumers."
12. Final thought: While disparaging those who lack concern for the environment or have agendas that deprioritize it, he recognizes the need for the diversity of views and solution and defers to others on the science. It's small consolation, but skeptics will have to take it. This pope is not treading any new ground, not saying anything new about climate change itself, its all been said by UN's IPCC.
And the encyclical is not even a 'climate change encyclical' but might be better summarized as: Stop using up the world; share it with others. Take less; love others more.
The pope is both Argentinian and Jesuit. That makes his understanding of basic economics negligible.
Harry Passfield, actually the wages of sin are death.
If the world is endangered by man's sinfulness then it's theologically sound that God will accept man's choice. We have free will.
The very creepy story in Genesis of Noah's flood addresses this. We try to make it a children's tale of Disney animals. But it's actually about the world being so ruined by the spiritual depravity f mankind that God hits reset and only saves the few who are not ruined. The story is a metaphor about the corporate responsibilities of mankind and it's just desserts.
Mankind's society and it's mercy is, therefore, in scope for the theological examination of the Pope.
I don't agree with him on the climate science but I do agree he should talk abut the nature of society.
Jun 18, 2015 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered Commenter PJ,
Excellent comment. Worthy of adding to the main post.
I would add though that there is a metaphorical aspect to this. This is for learning, not mere blind obedience.
Point 4b can be explained by remembering the good seed and the darnel. Crops are a metaphor for people and cultures.
"Have you seen the Popes encyclical ?"
"I didn't know he rode one"
"The biggest disappointment with this section is how poorly it is referenced."
Obviously the Pope didn't reference the Rapture Index:
You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as prophetic speedometer.
The higher the number, the faster we're moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture.
COMMENTS ON ACTIVE CATEGORIES
38. Wild Weather
The US sets a record for the longest span without seeing landfall
of a major hurricane.
41. Drought:
California will run out of water in one year's time.
42. Plagues
The Ebola Threat is diminishing in West Africa.
43. Climate
There has been a decrease in the level of deadly weather.
44. Food Supply
Record corn and soybean harvest expected In U.S.
45. Floods
The lack of activity has downgraded this category.
http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html
@ M Courtney
> So Green is a religion and the pope wants to merge with it
And there you have it. Restoration of previous power and glory by riding on the coattails of Greenpeace
Noble Cause Corruption - aka, monstrous vanity
The word “sustainability” (and derivatives) is littered throughout the document. The only human activity which is sustainable apparently is population growth.
Poverty and overpopulation are interdependent.
It’s all very well to claim that the Earth is capable of supporting a much greater population but it can’t and won’t if all the multiple “sustainability” caveats are followed.
Completely missed the part where the Pope calls for a global bureaucrapcy similar to the UN to run things. How many commie/fascist/socialist types have pushed totalitarianism on the backs of the poor??
Pope Francis says, "In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into a dialogue with all people about our common home."
When I pointed out this very line, on a previous thread, somebody claimed that the Encyclical didn't even exist. Perhaps I get an apology, now.
More to the point, how does the Pope propose to conduct this dialogue with "all people" after having equated climate sceptics with sinners?
Owen, I think you'll find the Pope is quite happy to talk to sinners, since he most certainly counts himself in that category too, as he's said numerous times.
I think the most useful aspect of the encyclical (and one of it's objectives) is to spark thinking and debate. If someone waves the document at you saying we must do this, or that, then you can point to the parts where it asks for proper evaluation of options, risks and costs. No good them shouting 'denier' as soon as you question their approach, Francis is clear that dialogue is needed. As MCourtney suggests above, the BBC may not like that one!
Watching Dellingpole with Andrew Neal yesterday,the Catholic Aid Organization guys says that Climate Change hits the poor the hardest.Nope lack of cheap energy hits them harder.
Also says that Wind Tubines and Solar panels are the energy solution for remote locations in the developing world opposed to building a centralized power grid.Okay so how they supposed to effectively install and maintain them with only third world dirt tracks.
Owen, the word "dialogue" is scattered repeatedly throughout the document, starting with
"In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home".
I have learnt to be cynical about those calling for "dialogue" in the climate debate. Very often (see for example here and here) those calling for a two-way discussion, debate, or dialogue have no interest in genuine discussion and are merely trying to promote their own views.
But maybe I am being too cynical. Let's take him at his word when he says "I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone".
ianl8888
I doubt it.Chris HanleyNo they aren't. In a world where we could currently give every living person ½-acre in Australia and still have the whole of the rest of the world left over we are not talking overpopulation.
What we are in danger of doing is letting the Malthusians and the eco-pessimists set the agenda. Their definition of "sustainable" is not mine.
Owen Morgan/Paul Matthews
What Joe said! If the Pope is calling for dialogue then he means dialogue. Unlike our "usual suspects" he doesn't have any particular axe to grind in this context. His background and his vocation and the position he finds himself in all influence his thinking especially towards the poor and towards certain aspects of modern human behaviour vis-s-vis the environment (or the natural world or even each other) which many of us are at least slightly uncomfortable with, the "throwaway society" that I referred to earlier. (I mean, are you happy that there are parts of the ocean that, I'm told, are more plastic and other detritus than they are water?!)
I think we need to forgive him for falling for the global warming exaggerations (and a bit of mendacity as well) and look closely at what else he is saying and what he is asking for.
If you don't like the "purely Catholic" bits then ignore them. Just remember that this was written primarily for Catholics. Though the rest of you are welcome to join in!
"One might take the Pope's supposed concern for the poor a little more seriously were he to change his teaching on contraception..." comment from cjcjc
Already happened, look for yourself: https://tinyurl.com/no7fq3s
--------
"The biggest disappointment with this section is how poorly it is referenced." from the main post
The Pope's advisor for climate was Schellnhuber: https://tinyurl.com/pa92745
says German newspaper: https://tinyurl.com/qdyys7z
" No they aren't. In a world where we could currently give every living person
½-acre in Australia and still have the whole of the rest of the world left over
we are not talking overpopulation."
I'm not sure everyone currently in Oz would be totally happy with that ;-) Are you suggesting a one-world government, total freedom of movement thing? People do try and relocate all the time but many governments try to prevent this.
As pointed out by what you replied to there is a connection between 'sustainability' and 'population' however you define the terms. Sustainability needs to be explicitly defined but is definitely worth discussing.
Sorry, I haven't had a chance to read the text yet. But I was wondering if anyone knows whether there's any mention of the 60 million refugees created in the last year - at least according to some UN honcho I heard on the radio today.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that perhaps it would have been a good thing - if not a far, far, better thing - for him to indicate his concern about these people. But that aside ....
Here's how it's being spun by Ed King at the RTCC:
And for good measure, Obama (who doesn't seem to give a damn about the 60 million refugees, many - if not most - of whose fate can be attributed to his ineptitude as a "leader") has declared:
And it's only just begun, folks :-( Somewhere today, I saw a video of Ki-moon announcing yet another September gathering of the great and the good (including the Pope and Obama) scheduled for September.
I might have missed it, but I haven't read or heard of any planned "High Level" gathering of the great and the good to develop a plan for responding to the needs of these 60 million refugees.
I've asked Kloor and Revkin if they really believe in the "pile of filth" imagery. No response as yet.
According to Jan Stunnenberg's link:
"The Pope's advisor for climate was Schellnhuber"
It is beyond the ken of the wildest imaginings of mankind, that and on any subject would anyone actively seek the advice of
Nosferatu's doppelganger. Herr Schellnhuber.Joking aside, reading and divining the subtext of this latest outpouring from the Vatican, it is nuanced and difficult to say actually whose side it comes down on but it was intended to stimulate debate, in that, I think it succeeds admirably.
Surely, it challenges, nay demands that, the faithful to pause and think. Not the first time Francis alludes imho rightly - to the waste and sheer directionless inanity of a modern consumerist society, for surely he posits - there must be something else, it's the eternal conundrum, " For what will it profit a man................."
Be not persuaded by the liberal tossers and the BBC crowing, "the pope says this and that" nor, indeed should that idiot President over the pond, set great store in this [Laudato Si] being a 'Green light' - for him and all its and the green blob boondoggling illusions.
Rome wasn't built in a day and Francis - is a Jesuit thinker, should not be underestimated, nor should his words be second-guessed, embellished and disingenuously misconstrued to be something they are not, be overestimated by people who don't want to know better.
The pope nudges, he winks and says - come on, THINK - for yer selves!
Athelstan, this overly long encyclical has something for everyone ...
The Pope says men and women should embrace their masculinity and femininity (take that, gender-benders!).
He worries about the power of technology (to the point of sounding like the plot of the latest technophobic hollywood blockbuster).
He expresses dismay at how we bailed out banks after the financial crisis and not the poor (sop to Greeks, Liz Warren and Ron Paul fans).
He's against stem cell research that kills embryos (no surprise there).
He's NOT into snapchat or facebook; he thinks people should have real conversations, not fake internet ones.
Apparently, he'd prefer a more rural setting than the vatican, complains about cities with "poor transportation, and visual pollution and noise" and "congested, chaotic and lacking in sufficient green space."
He says: "We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature."
He thinks air-conditioning is a bad waste of consumerism: "People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption ... A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning."
ACs are evil!
The problem with this encyclical is not the 95% of it that is NOT about the climate, and the fact that there is something for everyone, its that the 5% that is is hopelessly wrapped in alarmist rhetoric. There is something for the alarmists to use and abuse.
Consider quotes like: "most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future. The land of the southern poor is rich and mostly unpolluted, yet access to ownership of goods and resources for meeting vital needs is inhibited by a system of commercial relations and ownership which is structurally perverse. The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy..."
Basically, he expresses a redistributive view of how economies work and how to get 'justice'. Is he pro-property rights in lamenting 'structurally perverse' access to ownership or anti-property rights?
This is unscientific but a moral tale. In this tale, the evil northern capitalists stole from the south and ruined the planet for our (developed world's) wealth. This tale is a lie wrapped in a misunderstanding (of economics), encased in envy
"It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been. The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected. The Aparecida Document urges that “the interests of economic groups which irrationally demolish sources of life should not prevail in dealing with natural resources”.32 The alliance between the economy and technology ends up sidelining anything unrelated to its immediate interests. Consequently the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented."
So he's begging for an international agreement that subordinates the rich countries and makes them pay a 'debt' to poor countries. He thinks opposition to such moves is self-interested and based on economics, lending support to ad hominem attacks on climate skeptics. (btw, if everyone else here is taking oil company money, let me know how get some of it).
The Pope makes no mention that when the 3rd world delegates refuse to make limits to their own emissions but instead demand 'reparations' so that they consume like the developed world, its not noted how that is based on self-interest. I don't begrudge his bias towards the poor and downtrodden, but I do begrudge his ignorance of economics that distrusts the proven and long-standing benefits of free markets.
The Pope is most dangerous in his distrust of market economics and technocratic solutions. In truth, market economics and new technologies has removed the blight of poverty for many and it will be the path to ending poverty for all in the 21st century. The progress made on the basis of these is reason for optimism in the 21st centurty. The Catholic Herald is right - he is overly pessimistic, and eco-pessimism is both wrong and dangerous.
I think of McKibben's 350 efforts; he seriously wanted the world to stop at 350ppm. Look at the total lack of real problems we have had at 400ppm vs 350ppm, compare that to the economy-ravaging destruction that would take place in forcing us to stop the 50ppm that occurred. Nothing bad has happened due to that 50ppm rise. Cost would easily be in the trillions and significant - as in 10-20% loss in economies. That's the real consequences of unwarranted international intervention to stop CO2: Real serious, poverty-creating people-killng pain, for no real gain.
He is against the eco-pessimists who go so far as to hate mankind for being here at all, but also says: "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..." (60)
Ah, the 'myth of progress'. It's seems to me that our rise from the level of Hobbesian nasty, brutish and short lives to modern prosperity has been far from mythical.
- it is not a myth that we've increased our standard of living 10x or more since the industrial revolution and live longer, richer and better lives.
- it is not a myth that new technologies have lengthened our lifespan, liberated women from household drudgery (with political and economic ramifications)
- while technologies have made killing more efficient, we've made the world overall safer
- it is not a myth that this prosperity has enabled our modern economies to embrace environmental concerns, for example in the US reducing vehicles emissions 98% since 1970 and increasing energy efficiency 3% per year for the last 50 years.
The weight of the evidence is clear: Market-based economies (ie mostly free markets leavened by government and institutions providing legal framework for property rights and addressing issues of the common good), and improving technologies have indeed created the REALITY of progress. Whatever social or ecological challenges we face, be it pollution or crowded cities or poverty, that framework WILL be the framework for a real solution. And real progress.
" ... and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change."
Basically, Pope Francis is saying we can't continue to be consumerist and think the planet will fix itself. Fair enough - but nobody adopts technologies in a vacuum. This myth that technologies run amok without is akin to the myth of 'unbridled capitalism' - if only we tried that experiment somewhere for 30 years, we could see what happens. We never have. Neither have we let technology run amok.
But what is with the 'deep change' mantra? The real deep change that needs to take place is for people to stop looking to politics to solve economic or technological problems. Deep down, the problem of 'what energy source to use?' is miscast as a moral one, when it is really a question of technological possibilities and economic alternatives.
Fear sells. It sells movies and newspapers. It gets despots elected. And ecological fear, like those other forms of fear is not based on reason or facts, but is an emotional reaction, that gets amplified via false pretentions and predictions. go back to the 1970s and the Club of Rome had predicted our doom by now. ... Now the Pope has his new 'club of Rome' style missive.
In the end, we CAN solve a Co2 emissions challenge with a 'technocratic' solution: Build emissions-free energy technologies. Why else would not the pope himself mention 'renewable energy'? That's a technolcratic solution. Nuclear energy on a wide enough scale, plus renewables, could displace enough emissions to end 'climate change' as a problem. Once emissions get under 6 GT (a mere 30% reduction), Co2 levels will stop rising as the oceans and biosphere are absorbing close to that amount. We don't need carbon credits, nor taxes, nor redistribution to get there. All we need is for technology development and economic cost-reduction to advance to a point where these technologies are cheaper than fossil fuels. Do that by 2040 and the problem is solved.
Yes, indeed, think for ourselves. Think - towards real understanding of the climate, not the sexed up IPCC hype that overstates impacts and harms, driven by a political agenda of control. And Act - instead of following the dangerous and misguided calls from the alarmists to engage in bad 'all pain, no gain' co2 restrictions, work towards a post-fossil-fuel energy technology complex that is both cheaper and ecologically sounder. We have the time and the resources to successfully do that in the time needed.
PJ I think we should thump tubs together
Life is simple, you, and you alone are responsible for everything you do and everything that happens to you.
Relinquish the above is to admit you are controlled by others.
Yes, indeed, think for ourselves. Think - towards real understanding of the climate, not the sexed up IPCC hype that overstates impacts and harms, driven by a political agenda of control. And Act - instead of following the dangerous and misguided calls from the alarmists to engage in bad 'all pain, no gain' co2 restrictions, work towards a post-fossil-fuel energy technology complex that is both cheaper and ecologically sounder. We have the time and the resources to successfully do that in the time needed.
Pretty much, that is what I think too, PJ ;-).
Many thanks for this post, and helpful comments, particularly from Mike Jackson, PJ and others (and "even the Catholic Herald"!). The Pope has a pulpit (less metaphorical than many) so what he has to say can be of interest even to those who regard him as fundamentally deluded. It would be good to hear from other stalwart contributors (Johanna? Rhoda?) - though anyone who cannot find the time or motivation to read all 245 paragraphs of this document may certainly be excused .
I have a new torture to propose for my enemies: get trapped in an elevator with the Pope, Prince Charles, and Al Gore.
More...confirmation: it's a damp squib of an encyclical
Fracking and the Franciscans (Op-Ed, David Brooks, New York Times, June 23, 2015)