Guest opinion by Joe Ronan
Laudato Si – A cry for the poor
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 than 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 travelers 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 consider again at our common humanity.
Full document here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
but science is also said to be powerless if it loses its moral compass.
Science is not about being right or wrong. It is about getting it right or wrong. The power derived comes from that and that alone.
Phew! Reading all the above cpmments, it’s hard to see where exactly the thread went off track. It’s like the TV show, the Big Bang Theory, it’s hard to see at what point it went awry, but you just knew it always would.
CO2 at 0.04 parts per hundred is not a poison on the planet. Arrhenius didn’t study C02 concentrations this low. Stephan-Botltzman “black body” is not a correct model of the earth.
It’s reminiscent of the joke about scientists trying to handicap a horse race: “Consider a sphere.”
The fact is during the last Ice Age’s maximum, a lot of today’s “temperate zone” was not human-habitable.
The idea of an “average global temperature” is a lunatic proposition. First off, if the current average is 14.6, compared to LA 17.6, and a 3 degree C increase will take the global average to Los Angeles-San Diego, what’s wrong with that, especially if most of the warning will occur in the Canadian-Siberian region?
Glaciers will retreat to uncover old-growth forests that grew before glaciers killed them.
Here is what all the anti-fossil fuel spokespersons say:
Al Gore: I only ride across the world in fossil-fuel jets, because I HAVE to in order to stop the monstrosity of what I am doing.
Christina Figuras: I HATE traveling in jets, but I HAVE to spread the message that what I am doing is terrible.
Barack Obama: I HATE traveling in Air Force One to play golf in Florida and Palm Springs, and sending Michelle and her mom, and our kids to Aspen, Africa and Europe on AF 2, because we all really HATE creating excess CO2, but we have to, in order to have fun vacations. We really HATE sending our dogs on Marine One helicopter to Martha’s Vineyard, when there was plenty of room on our 747.
Leonardo Dicaprio: I HATE riding in a private jet from LA to NYC to give a speech at the UN. I HATE renting a maga-fuel-burning yacht to host a mega-party in Brazil.
RK Puchauri: I hate riding first class in fossil fuel burning jets. All this corrupting fossil-fuel burning jet-riding made me to be sexual predator. Before being named to be IPCC chair, and being forced to ride fossil-fuel-burning jets, I was a decent guy.
And fossil-fuel-jet-traveling made me insane, as it caused me to to go to Kinkos and send 2000 Nobel Certificate photocopies with their names on the to a lot of people with a letter, “You won this Nobel Peace Prize.” and they put “Nobel Prize Recipient” on their CVs. Not that they had received a Nobel Medal, or even 1/2000 shaving of it, or a 1/2000 share of the $750,000 monetary half-prize. I decided that I could name my own Nobel Prizes. And a lot of third-rate scientists who didn’t understand how Nobel Prizes work, accepted their “Prize”.
I blame it on jet lag, and fossil fuels, that caused me to discredit a lot of people, including Michael Mann, who filed a lawsuit claiming that Mark Steyn libeled a “Nobel Prize recipient”, which was a completely false statement. It was not a fraudulent statement, because Dr. Mann was not informed enough to know that I wasn’t qualified to issue Nobel Awards.
(sarc, nobody ever said the foregoing.)
With the Pope calling for a “Cultural Revolution” I am reminded of another time when elites called for such a thing. Think Madame Mao and the Gang of Four and the Red Guards and public humiliation sessions for non-believers.
Things could go bad quick.
I’m rapt that the Pope has pontificated on climate and come to the decisions he has.
The Pope throwing his lot in with the warmists will tilt the balance of religion-based debaters and do-gooding nutters to that side. Chuck in the one-world fantasists and snouts-in-the-troughers and what an ugly alliance is made. The warmists are now going to have to work extra hard to convince the decision makers, especially those outside the Bible belt, that their arguments are rooted in solid science. And, as they aren’t, they’ll be easier to defeat.
Had the Pope come out and declared the warmists’ case to be wildly overstated, realists would have been back to where we were ten years ago, having to dissociate ourselves from religious fundamentalists each time we entered a debate, pretty much from the kick-off.
I have no trouble with people of faith joining in the debate, of course. It’s faith being as a position of authority, a situation which the Pope can’t avoid, that I find distasteful. I’d rather people of that ilk were on the other side.
So much for science!
Because this comes from a religious leader, everyone is handling it with white gloves, wondering what’s there for them they’ll like or not: debate, conversation, what does Lomborg think… How about asking the pope about astrophysics next and debate the sex of angels for a while? Bottom line: the Cause supposedly scientific minds exposed their inability to prove their theory by dangling a religious figure in order to shut down science is a priceless acknowledgement of failure. Resorting to such kind of moral hijacking exposes a deep rooted corruption of the CAGW agenda and its enablers. White glove handling such a declaration of war by the Cause is beyond misreading the determination of eco totalitarians.
So many ghost dancers with all of the answers.
============
If the pope realy cares for the poor, then why not gove them some of his gold and silver? I have been in a catholic church in Peru adorned with 13 tonnes of silver with filthy starving beggars outside on the steps.
When my dad and grandad were flying around the Arctic in the 1930s, Catholic priests would rip the gullible NW Territory Indians off by telling them they had prayed for them all year, so they owed the Church Arctic fox hides. So much for the poor of the earth.
Nothing has changed. Still a rip-off protection racket after all these centuries.
Lost opportunity. A chance to unite wasted in enhanced polarisation by political expediency, do goodiness, and ‘consensual’ skience that denies the trendless interval of the last 19 years.
“The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.”
The so called ‘model of development’ is not a ‘model’. It is reality, history and the foreseeable future. To call it a model is to suggest it may be replaced by another ‘better’, ‘moral’, ‘efficient’, (choose your political or religious adjective) model. To date,there is no such model or model based on science that does not shackle the poor further and impoverish those blessed with greater prosperity.
In these type of times where it seems the whole world has gone mad it’s not hard to understand why some older burly dudes just decided to disappear and live off the grid. I have known a couple giys like that. I imagine they havent read the latest pope mein kampf or the ipcc assessment.
Y’know what? Who cares WHAT the deluded think, and what nonsense they get up to. The bottom line is we can all sleep a lot better than they do, knowing “the Planet” is the same as it ever was, in no trouble whatsoever, and human “thought” on any level has a shelf-life of around 60 years, max, more to the point an attention span of less than 15 minutes. In terms of geologic time, what is THAT? 😉
Can’t we just pray that the climate doesn’t change?
God is Almighty, or are we to believe Carbon Dioxide is more powerful.
I doubt the Pope is Catholic.
Joe Ronan: Before I get started, may I suggest that you learn the difference between “its” (the possessive form of “it”) and “it’s” the contraction of “it” and “is”. As soon as I see the misuse of these important words (after all, didn’t impeached President Clinton muse at length on the meaning of “is”?) I begin to nod off.
right on cue:
18 June: WaPo: Karen Tumulty: Republican presidential hopefuls on the hot seat, thanks to Pope Francis
(Michelle Boorstein and Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report)
For more than half a century, Catholic politicians in the United States have regularly been put in awkward positions on the question of how closely they would — or should — follow the dictates of the Vatican.
Until recently, Democrats usually were the ones to feel the most heat. But now it is the turn of Republicans, thanks to Pope Francis, the charismatic and activist pontiff who is set to visit the United States in September…
Catholic politicians face a balancing act, given the popularity of a pope who had an approval rating of 86 percent among U.S. Catholics and 64 percent among Americans overall in a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-test-of-faith-pope-francis-puts-2016-gop-hopefuls-on-the-defensive/2015/06/18/bc3af116-15d2-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html
16 June: Pew Research: Jocelyn Kiley: Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever
Even so, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that there has been a significant uptick over the past two years in the share of Americans who say global warming is a very serious problem. Currently, 46% say that global warming is a very serious problem, up 13 percentage points from the spring of 2013.
Partisanship and ideology remain some of the strongest factors underlying attitudes about whether Earth is warming, our survey finds. Today, roughly nine-in-ten liberal Democrats (92%) say that there is solid evidence Earth’s average temperature is rising, and 76% attribute this rise mostly to human activity. Very few liberal Democrats (5%) say there is not solid evidence of warming. A clear 83% majority of conservative and moderate Democrats also say Earth is warming, but just 55% say this is the result of human activity.
By contrast, just 38% of conservative Republicans say that there is solid evidence of global warming. Reflecting a divide within the GOP, conservative Republicans stand out as the only ideological group in which a majority (56%) says that there is not solid evidence of a rise in the earth’s temperature (a 61% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say Earth is warming)…
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/
Where did this Encyclical Come From? A Quick Review from Remnant TV…
https://youtu.be/_r_AW1R0pBY
The pope’s message goes back to the old global warming, not climate change – bad strategy, when there is a cooling trend underway.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Well, I need to read what the Pope wrote for myself, rather than take others’ word for it.
In the meantime, this particularly article is evenhanded and well quoted.
I do think the statements regarding climate will prove embarrassing, perhaps even regrettable and possibly even harmful.
Even older than the church, Primum non nocere: “First, do no harm.”
Anything that increases energy costs and food costs, including converting corn to motor-fuel is immoral, sinful, harmful to people, especially the poorest of us.
I assert boldly that burning edible food for fuel is sin. It is immoral. I will go so far as to say it is a crime against humanity. It increases the cost of energy, increases the cost of food, and reduces the availability of food. What could be more harmful to the poorest two-thirds of our population?
The fact is that actions taken in the name of saving the global climate, and actions taken in the coerced (referring to subsidies funded by taxes) support of alternative energy sources, are causing measurable harm today, right now.
No harm done today can ever be construed to justify a possible lessening of harm in some distant future.
We will do what we must.
Today, for our generation, for our children and grandchildren today, we should do all we can to improve all proven energy sources, especially nuclear, but also coal, oil, and natural gas. We have a moral imperative to increase availability of fuel and power production and to decrease the cost by all means of efficiency gains and economy of scale.
More energy, not less. That will accomplish the Pope’s stated goal of assisting the poorest of us.
“Laudato Si – A cry for the poor”
We really should cry for the poor if the Pope gets his way on fossil fuels. Immediately beginning to replace them with alternative energy sources that have proven to be expensive, inefficient, and unreliable will make energy too expensive for the poor to afford.
I see comments here and elsewhere referring to this encyclical as an ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement. However, this encyclical letter to the churches is issued ex magisterium ordinarium. Thus only the most general statements derive from the magisterium
http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
This encyclical binds Catholics to obey its strictures and to believe the traditional dogmas mentioned, such as the Fall and Original Sin etc for which the claim to infallibility applies.
This encyclical does not command belief in specific secular means to achieve the moral objectives. I am referring to several specific things mentioned in the encyclical like markets, carbon pricing, international government etc.
In my opinion these specifics would not have been included if the Vatican institutions had been involved in drafting the encyclical. However, this encyclical was not drafted by Vatican institutions nor properly vetted by Vatican experts in science, economics and politics, which goes a long way to explain what comes across to some readers as thinly disguised rants, albeit in low key.
My understanding is that the main flaws in this encyclical arise because it was drafted by a long-standing crony of the Pope. The result is that the Pope has made a huge blunder by aligning himself on one side of what is becoming a worldwide controversy about policy and practices for protection of the environment.
Issuing an encyclical on the moral duty to protect the environment is consistent with the role of the Pope, but if you read the reference provided. you will see that modern Popes usually rely on the combined wisdom of the Vatican Curia and its institutions. This Pope and his successors will regret having circumvented this process.
Reference: http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
I see comments here and elsewhere referring to this encyclical as an ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement. However, this encyclical letter to the churches is issued ex magisterium ordinarium. Thus only the most general statements derive from the magisterium
http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
This encyclical binds Catholics to obey its strictures and to believe the traditional dogmas mentioned, such as the Fall and Original Sin etc for which the claim to infallibility applies.
This encyclical does not command belief in specific secular means to achieve the moral objectives. I am referring to several specific things mentioned in the encyclical like markets, carbon pricing, international government etc.
In my opinion these specifics would not have been included if the Vatican institutions had been involved in drafting the encyclical. However, this encyclical was not drafted by Vatican institutions nor properly vetted by Vatican experts in science, economics and politics, which goes a long way to explain what comes across to some readers as thinly disguised rants, albeit in low key.
My understanding is that the main flaws in this encyclical arise because it was drafted by a long-standing crony of the Pope. The result is that the Pope has made a huge blunder by aligning himself on one side of what is becoming a worldwide controversy about policy and practices for protection of the environment.
Issuing an encyclical on the moral duty to protect the environment is consistent with the role of the Pope, but if you read the reference provided. you will see that modern Popes usually rely on the combined wisdom of the Vatican Curia and its institutions. This Pope and his successors will regret having circumvented this process.
Reference: http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
There are a few portions of the encyclical that will be ignored by the MSM and the Left: The first being the Pope’s scathing rebuke of abortion and population control. Pope Francis rightly asserts that one cannot be pro-abortion and be an environmentalist. Secondly, he rightly pointed out the misery Family Planning policies have wrought on the poor. It is too bad that he didn’t mention the plunging fertility rates in the Developed Nations. In Russia, Italy, and Japan the populations are already falling, and Germany the population will begin to fall in the next few years. The UN is now projecting that the global population will peak sometime around 2050-2060
I wasn’t surprised by the the Pope’s take on “Climate”. As the author pointed out, it was poorly footnoted. But, it was also very imprecise (Is it Climate Change or is it Global Warming?), full of straw-men, and vague attributions. At times I think the Pope tried to visit too many subjects, as the encyclical came close to being incomprehensible. I think the Pope would have been better to stick with the environment and leave the climate business to others.
As one would expect there is much that can be applauded in Laudato Si but if man really is affecting climate detrimentally much of this is due to overpopulation. The nearest that the Pope gets to this is:
“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.”
A pity that he could not bring himself to admit that over population in part due to Catholic (and Islamic) restrictions as to the use of birth control contributes more to the consumption and erosion of the planet’s resources than does a possible increase of 1C or even 2C in global temperatures.
If I may be permitted another grumble (way off thread), the Pope writes:
“The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all. If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others. That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive”.”
New Zealand is a long way from Rome and perhaps the study of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek does not flourish in the Antipodes but one would have expected Bishops to know that the commandment, as inscribed on the walls on at least one of the City of London’s oldest churches, is “Thou shalt not murder”. The mistranslated “kill” is a relatively modern corruption.
“New Zealand is a long way from Rome and perhaps the study of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek does not flourish in the Antipodes . . .”
++++++++++++++++++
No “perhaps” about it. Most study in the antipodes is concentrated on race form (there are 65 racecourses for a population of four million) and fishing methods (the whole country is coastal). Down here, the churches are empty but bayside launching ramps are chocka. The joint is running just the way we like it.
I do not know why anyone is even talking about this. The pope??? In the 21st century?? Fuckit. I seriously don’t give a shit.
The pope is just doing what Catholicism has always done historically: When a separate religion is perceived as a competitive threat (in this case, the pagan Cult of Gaia) it co-opts the competitor in whatever ways it can in order to bring the heretics and pagans back into the fold. By so doing, the church can then redirect the some of the wealth flowing to the competing religion back toward the church.
Is StinkSmogress now hiring trolls to infest these threads?
Don’t tell me that there are really that many Know Nothing about this site’s regular readers.