The Pope's environmental encyclical has been released, discuss here.

[mark46]

Of course beef also involves a good deal of production of methane, which is massively worse than CO2

Yes, indeed.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Let's hope. I'm sure some probably will take it on board and adjust their political stance accordingly.

I'm sure some will also come up with ways to excuse themselves from following it. Probably while criticising others for being "cafeteria Catholics" as they do so, quite oblivious to the irony.

It says right in Laudato si' that the Church isn't offering this as a definitive opinion on climate change but wants to encourage debate about it "while respecting divergent views." So how would it make someone a cafeteria Catholic if they agree with what the encyclical says about itself? From the encyclical (emphasis is mine):

"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." - Pope Francis

"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. But we need only take a frank look at the facts to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair. Hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, that we can always do something to solve our problems. Still, we can see signs that things are now reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation; these are evident in large-scale natural disasters as well as social and even financial crises, for the world’s problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation. There are regions now at high risk and, aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable from a number of points of view, for we have stopped thinking about the goals of human activity. “If we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations”." - Pope Francis​

 

[ebia]

It says right in Laudato si' that the Church isn't offering this as a definitive opinion on climate change but wants to encourage debate about it

For some value of "this". It's quite specific about what it's saying clearly and where it's saying there is still stuff to be worked out. You are overgeneralising quite specific quotes.

 

[mark46]

It says right in Laudato si' that the Church isn't offering this as a definitive opinion on climate change but wants to encourage debate about it "while respecting divergent views." So how would it make someone a cafeteria Catholic if they agree with what the encyclical says about itself? From the encyclical (emphasis is mine):

"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." - Pope Francis

"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. But we need only take a frank look at the facts to see that our common home is falling into serious disrepair. Hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, that we can always do something to solve our problems. Still, we can see signs that things are now reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation; these are evident in large-scale natural disasters as well as social and even financial crises, for the world’s problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation. There are regions now at high risk and, aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable from a number of points of view, for we have stopped thinking about the goals of human activity. “If we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations”." - Pope Francis​

You seem to think that the pope isn't sure that there is man-made climate change and that he isn't sure about his call for action. You seem to think this because the pope believes that we should listen to divergent views with regard to how to reduce emissions and solve some of the other problems he has listed. The pope doesn't want to presuppose the methods. However, he is quite clear with regard to the problems. He believe that we are at a breaking point.

This situation reminds of the situation with regard to smoking so many years ago. Yes, there needs to be much discussion. But the problem HAS INDEED been defined.

 

[Armoured]

Not sure if you're joking, or just no idea what you're talking about.

Climate change is happening, whether it's Man made, nature or Man speeding up nature it's happening.

Joking.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

For some value of "this". It's quite specific about what it's saying clearly and where it's saying there is still stuff to be worked out. You are overgeneralising quite specific quotes.

It says right in the encyclical that Pope Francis' opinion he's giving on the science of climate change isn't meant to be taken as definitive. And it even says that debate between the experts on it is encouraged while respecting divergent views. So it makes no sense to call someone a cafeteria Catholic for agreeing with what the encyclical says about itself.

 

[smaneck]

When you're talking about FDA, NRC, etc. you're dealing with corporations, and they have to buy in, too, as a corporate entity. Government need not be a nanny, though. I don't think anything I've said goes against the Pope's sentiments.

I think it does. I don't get the sense that this Pope has much sympathy for unbridled capitalism. Nor do I think he has any objections to what the right decries as "the nanny state."

I would like to congratulate the Catholic Community for this Encyclical. It's wonderful! May it have the desired end. There is something to be said for Catholics being consistently pro-life rather than focusing exclusively on the unborn.

 

[ebia]

It says right in the encyclical that Pope Francis' opinion he's giving on the science of climate change isn't meant to be taken as definitive. And it even says that debate between the experts on it is encouraged while respecting divergent views. So it makes no sense to call someone a cafeteria Catholic for agreeing with what the encyclical says about itself.

1. I think you're conflagrating clear and definitive.
2. You're trying to imply that it is unclear about all the science. It's explicitly not.
3. You're trying to make it look like everything is up for debate and divergent views. It's explicitly not.
4. You're missing the point that it is addressed to all of good will, not just catholics; it clearly expects more divergence of opinion from outside the church than within.

The encyclical is clear that there is a big problem that requires massive and rapid systemic change to address. It even has harsh words for those who continue to deny that.

It allows room for debate about aspects of the detail.

 

[Fantine]

While getting a wheel alignment I read a little more.

Interesting how he goes back to Genesis to discuss man's primary relationships with God, other people, and the earth.

And in bemoaning the lack of leadership from governments and big business interests, he clearly finds much to criticize--even without climate change.

He also says that science and technological advancement alone won't solve the problem. The developed world must make lifestyle changes.

And he does mention those who feel the problem is overpopulation. The world today couldn't't sustain 7 billion Americans, but is our lifestyle necessary for happiness?

 

[paulm50]

The answer for the West is NOT a reduction in population. That roads leads to a disastrous economic collapse. Japan, South Korea, Singapore are trying to deal with the consequences of a reducing population.

It is NOT impossible for Western countries to reduce their carbon footprints. The solution is no different than for any other problem. We need to look to those countries and those methods that constitute best practices and improve our carbon footprint. Just, BTW, we have done this with regard to automobiles. Autos use much less fuel that a few decades ago.

Then we do nothing.

Yes fighting it, or just slowing it down will bring economic hardships, hoy as hard as dying of thirst though. Might be better to stop using autos that are so big. Or start using bikes. Look at the water reserves as a guide to the problem.

The west largely has reduced its population growth to a negative reproduction rate. You can't reduce the population rapidly without a whole new set of problems. (Unless you shoot one person in 50 every year or something to spread it out over the ages.)

Yes the US is decreased by 0.7% per year. Peanuts. No it's a case of every couple having one child each.

Well, China has been trying to reduce its population growth - and is finding out how that introduces a whole new set of massive problems.

With or without population growth changes its going to need massive rethinking of economic systems.

Yes, we will have to reduce our living standards. It's our over consumption that's the problem. With less people there will be less need to produce, to earn more to consume what we don't need. The time for an easy solution passed a while back.

That's not an either-or with reuse and recycling.

Check out all the clothes youhave, do you really need all of them? Think of it as going on a trip and packing a suitcase. What do you really need?

Yes, in the west we need to massively reduce the amount of water we each use. And reduce our use of products that use a lot of water to produce. Much of the world already uses much, much less than we do.

Agreed.

 

[paulm50]

The only population reduction that works is the very old solution of killing your elders. Absent that unacceptable solution, we need lots and lots of children to support an aging population.

Absolute rubbish. The only one that will reduce the problem effectively is every couple having one child. If they did that in the 3rd World, it would reduce their problems rapidly. If we did it in the West it would halve or consumption in a generation. There wouldn't be that many elderly in a generation. Those we have it's easy to import carers from the 3rd World. In the UK they keep saying strain on the NHS is due to the elderly, it's due to population explosion and life styles.

And in bemoaning the lack of leadership from governments and big business interests, he clearly finds much to criticize--even without climate change.

He could take a lead by telling Catholics to use contraception.

He also says that science and technological advancement alone won't solve the problem. The developed world must make lifestyle changes.

Absolutely, like thinking the bible has an answer. It is the problem. "Go forth and multiply."

And he does mention those who feel the problem is overpopulation. The world today couldn't sustain 7 billion Americans, but is our lifestyle necessary for happiness?

The World can't sustain 6 billion people. Much of the world has a problem with too many trying to live on too little and every child that's saved, goes on to produce more. Kindest way is contraception, but their god demands they multiply. So they do and watch their children starve, never ending circle.

 

[ebia]

Then we do nothing.

Yes fighting it, or just slowing it down will bring economic hardships, hoy as hard as dying of thirst though. Might be better to stop using autos that are so big. Or start using bikes. Look at the water reserves as a guide to the problem.

Yes the US is decreased by 0.7% per year. Peanuts. No it's a case of every couple having one child each.

I have only got one child.

But forcing people into that creates a whole host of problems, and the massively and rapidly ageing population it creates sets up even bigger ones (assuming we don't want to be put-down when we get to old to work). Unless you allow in migrants to keep the balance, which I have absolutely no problem with, but many do.

Yes, we will have to reduce our living standards. It's our over consumption that's the problem. With less people there will be less need to produce, to earn more to consume what we don't need. The time for an easy solution passed a while back.
Check out all the clothes youhave, do you really need all of them? Think of it as going on a trip and packing a suitcase. What do you really need?

I've bought very few clothes for a long time. And I have happily lived out of a suitcase for two months at a time working FIFO on Nauru. (Yes, I know flying people back and forth is a environmental issues, but thats the stupidity of imprisoning innocent people on tiny remote islands for you.)

 

[ebia]

Absolute rubbish. The only one that will reduce the problem effectively is every couple having one child. If they did that in the 3rd World, it would reduce their problems rapidly. If we did it in the West it would halve or consumption in a generation. There wouldn't be that many elderly in a generation. Those we have it's easy to import carers from the 3rd World.

It's just about caring for the elderly. If you want them to eat, keep warm, have clothes, etc - you have to have enough working people to generate that extra wealth. x many people working can only support y many people not working.

 

[paulm50]

I have only got one child.

But forcing people into that creates a whole host of problems, and the massively and rapidly ageing population it creates sets up even bigger ones (assuming we don't want to be put-down when we get to old to work). Unless you allow in migrants to keep the balance, which I have absolutely no problem with, but many do.

I've bought very few clothes for a long time. And I have happily lived out of a suitcase for two months at a time working FIFO on Nauru. (Yes, I know flying people back and forth is a environmental issues, but thats the stupidity of imprisoning innocent people on tiny remote islands for you.)

To Reduce Climate Change, Reduce Consumption
The Climate-Change Solution No One Will Talk About

It's just about caring for the elderly. If you want them to eat, keep warm, have clothes, etc - you have to have enough working people to generate that extra wealth. x many people working can only support y many people not working.

Why do you assume we can keep our present level of life style and slow down global warming?

Rain Forest loss. See why it's being lost.

If you believe god created the world, he obviously never created it to be destroyed by Man.

 

[Armoured]

I have only got one child.

But forcing people into that creates a whole host of problems, and the massively and rapidly ageing population it creates sets up even bigger ones (assuming we don't want to be put-down when we get to old to work). Unless you allow in migrants to keep the balance, which I have absolutely no problem with, but many do.


I've bought very few clothes for a long time. And I have happily lived out of a suitcase for two months at a time working FIFO on Nauru. (Yes, I know flying people back and forth is a environmental issues, but thats the stupidity of imprisoning innocent people on tiny remote islands for you.)

What were you doing FIFO on Nauru?

 

[Fish and Bread]

I am a strong advocate for cap and trade, a corporate carbon tax, banning new construction of dirty fuel electric plants, subsidies for solar, wind, and water power, direct government construction of clean energy plants, increased fuel emissions standards for new cars off the assembly lines, and so on and so forth. Global climate change is a very real problem and we need to take, as the Pope said, drastic action at the policy level.

However, I strongly oppose any sort of involuntary population controls. I think we can protect both the environment and human rights simultaneously. Procreation and the right to form a family are basic human rights as recognized by the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights.

 

[mark46]

I am a strong advocate for cap and trade, a corporate carbon tax, banning new construction of dirty fuel electric plants, subsidies for solar, wind, and water power, direct government construction of clean energy plants, increased fuel emissions standards for new cars off the assembly lines, and so on and so forth. Global climate change is a very real problem and we need to take, as the Pope said, drastic action at the policy level.

However, I strongly oppose any sort of involuntary population controls. I think we can protect both the environment and human rights simultaneously. Procreation and the right to form a family are basic human rights as recognized by the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights.

None of the political suggestions you suggest constitute "drastic action at the policy level", other than the truly horrible idea of putting the government in charge of building "clean energy plants". I spent my working life in the energy industry. That idea is an especially poor one.

It will take lots, lots more to bring the carbon footprint of the US more in line even with the UK, whose footprint is half of ours. It will take lots and lots of action to reverse the trends with regard to water use.

You mention a few (important) government efforts in power production and transportation. Some are good, some not so much. Look at gurney's personal testimony. There is much more that we as individuals can do, in what we eat, we purchase, and how we act in our everyday lives. IMHO, one of those important actions is to support political candidates at the local and national level that will act to help avoid the catastrophe that the pope has warned us about.
=======
AS AN ASIDE
We need to focus on more that just the environmental issues in the pope's encyclical. After all, his focus is how we treat one another.

 

[ebia]

What were you doing FIFO on Nauru?

Working for the Salvos, assisting and teaching the asylum seekers incarcerated there.

 

[Armoured]

Working for the Salvos, assisting and teaching the asylum seekers incarcerated there.

Ah. Voluntary or paid?

 

[ebia]

Why do you assume we can keep our present level of life style and slow down global warming?

i don't. I'm perfectly with Francis that we cannot.