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

[ebia]

tsk tsk. :smh: So I name one way we can reduce consumption, and you jump on it as a minor thing.

Because it is.

The encyclical talks about the necessity for far reaching massive changes to our consumption, our lifestyles, our enonomic systems, ...

Because I know where the pope is authoritative, and where he's not.

It sets itself up a social justice encyclical with all the authority that implies.

Besides all that, this is not a "Global Warming Encyclical".

It's about all the ways we are living unsustainably. That makes its demands all the stronger, not weaker.

Global Warming is only mentioned 14 times. On that, I can disagree with the Pope's scientists.

The encyclical has strong words for those who continue to deny the problem.

 

[ebia]

Not just in the west, according to the article.

Correct. It makes it clear that resources will need to be distributed much more fairly. That's going to require much bigger sacrifices where consumption is most over sustainability, and the west helping the poorest to make their systems more sustainable

 

[smaneck]

The Vatican doesn't publish a translation of Bonum Sane, and not being inclined to trust quotes out of context I pasted the quotation given into Google. Funnily enough, all the results are crackpot conspiracy sites.

I checked it out on wiki and it seems that the Pope did not object to socialism as long as it was achieved by democratic rather than violent means:

"If they [the poor and the workers] win the right of emerging from poverty and obtaining a better rank by lawful means, reason and justice uphold them in changing the order established, in the first instance, for them by the Providence of God. But recourse to force and struggles by seditious paths to obtain such ends are madnesses which only aggravate the evil which they aim to suppress."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because it is.

But you sought to minimize my whole point by saying that recycling plastic isn't enough, as if nobody knows this. There's plenty of other places that the entire western world can consume less.

The encyclical talks about the necessity for far reaching massive changes to our consumption, our lifestyles, our enonomic systems, ...

So why not do what we can do, individually, now? That's all I'm saying. You know, it takes a lot of drops to make a gallon of water, but if you've had a leaky faucet unfixed for a time, have you seen how much more it is because of it? It should not take government mandates for us to do this stuff. I went to a baseball game the other day, and was amazed how many people just left their garbage there for someone else to clean up. By the way, I walked from home to the bus stop, rode mass transit to the central location in the city, walked to the game and back. Just another way people could consume less. Even brought my own sandwich and drink, and transported it all.

It sets itself up a social justice encyclical with all the authority that implies.

I agree with the social justice of conservation. It's very important, I've been doing it for decades. I didn't need the Pope to tell me I should. I could always do more, granted, but as it is, I'm pretty tight. I even unplug appliances when not in use.
All I'm against is some global governmental entity taking over all this stuff when it's not even settled science. But even if it's not, to me, conservation is a necessity.

It's about all the ways we are living unsustainably. That makes its demands all the stronger, not weaker.

Without government regulations, I'm good with it. Perhaps incentives to do more, but even that, I'm against. We should do more because we care, and because God wants us to.

The encyclical has strong words for those who continue to deny the problem.

Yeah, just don't get politicians involved...

 

[smaneck]

Because I know where the pope is authoritative, and where he's not.

An encyclical sounds pretty authoritative to me:

"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth Me." (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians."

—Humani generis

But I suppose if you think Humanae vitae isn't authoritative, I suppose this encyclical isn't authoritative either.

Besides all that, this is not a "Global Warming Encyclical". Global Warming is only mentioned 14 times.

Climate change is mentioned an additional 16 times. But I'm glad he addressed the larger issues which are creating our current paralysis.

On that, I can disagree with the Pope's scientists.

And 99% of the rest of the world's scientists as well. You can even join the Flat Earth Society if you like.

 

[Liberasit]

Funny quip in parliament about this today.

 

[smaneck]

By the way, why would there be a fresh water shortage? Would it be because it's all captured in glaciers, and ice bergs? Kinda defeats the idea of 'global warming'.
By the way, I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve water. I am a conservationist, not a global warming believer.

There is a fresh water shortage because we are polluting our waters. If the glaciers and ice bergs melt it will not produce anymore fresh water. The water will go into the ocean and by salinated. It will then raise the level of the oceans causing the disappearance of many islands and coastal areas.

Bottom line: We will lose land but not gain anymore fresh water.

 

[ebia]

But you sought to minimize my whole point by saying that recycling plastic isn't enough, as if nobody knows this. There's plenty of other places that the entire western world can consume less.

It's still thinking in the realm of "what can we do that won't involve much sacrifice". The encyclical is clear that what is required is much, much more than that - huge changes in the way we live.

So why not do what we can do, individually, now? That's all I'm saying. You know, it takes a lot of drops to make a gallon of water, but if you've had a leaky faucet unfixed for a time, have you seen how much more it is because of it?

We certainly need to do the easy stuff.
But the easy stuff is not going to add up to what is needed, or anything but a tiny fraction of what is needed. Much more radical changes are needed immediately.

It should not take government mandates for us to do this stuff.

It will take government mandates and government action to begin to approach what is needed, or to do it on the time scale needed.

I agree with the social justice of conservation. It's very important, I've been doing it for decades. I didn't need the Pope to tell me I should. I could always do more, granted, but as it is, I'm pretty tight. I even unplug appliances when not in use.

Fantastic, but the scale of change being talked about is at whole systems levels. If every catholic does what you do, that's still not approaching what's needed. Like other social justice encyclicals, it addresses the system.

All I'm against is some global governmental entity taking over all this stuff when it's not even settled science. But even if it's not, to me, conservation is a necessity.

As it makes clear, that there is a problem is settled.

Exactly what the outcomes are won't be settled until it's too late.

Without government regulations, I'm good with it.

As meaningful as saying "I'm all for people's drinking water being clean, as long as the government doesn't interfere in the right to polute it upstream or do anything about it".

Perhaps incentives to do more, but even that, I'm against. We should do more because we care, and because God wants us to.
Yeah, just don't get politicians involved...

The level of the problem is well beyond the indivudal.

 

[smaneck]

What form of government do you think the Pope 'has sympathy for'?

I suspect he would favor a more conservative form of government, but conservative in the 18th and 19th century sense of the word when conservatism was combating classical liberalism. I'm not saying he would return to monarchical forms of government, but I do think he sees government as having a paternal interest in its citizenry which modern day conservatives decry as the 'nanny state.'

There are no examples of unbridled capitalism in the world, as far as I can tell).

That's true but this precisely the direction in which the Austrian School and right would like to take us. And thanks to big businesses 'unbridled' contributions to political campaigns they seem to be able to buy congressional elections if they still can't buy the presidency.

We don't focus exclusively on the unborn. We're also worried about the elderly, the marginalized, and other groups, too.

That's true of the Catholic Church. It is not true of the evangelical right. They'd like to get rid of Social Security and Medicare.

 

[smaneck]

Not just in the west, according to the article.

Yes, China is the biggest polluter today.

 

[ebia]

Yes, China is the biggest polluter today.

Not per-capita.

Though certainly China will have to take massive steps too. (As they have made useful moves).

 

[smaneck]

Meanwhile reducing the safety of vehicles, because most of the mpg gain has come from lightening vehicles...

Not really. That was the case in the 70's and 80's when we first starting importing Japanese autos with good MPGs. Today most the fuel efficiency comes from better designed automatic transmissions and hybrids. A midsize car's mileage now is as good as an economy car. Midsize cars are not lightweight. There are cars sold in India and Africa that get even better mileage but those cars cannot be sold in the US because they aren't safe. I'm thinking of cars like the ones produced by Tata Motors which cost only 3 or 4K.

 

[smaneck]

Not per-capita.
.

Given that their population is 1.4 billion we would be in big trouble if they got anywhere near doing that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's still thinking in the realm of "what can we do that won't involve much sacrifice". The encyclical is clear that what is required is much, much more than that - huge changes in the way we live.

Baloney. I sacrifice a lot. I know lots of people that do, too. If everyone would do their part of their own, it would make a huge difference, much more than what Kyoto suggested, which would, at best, alter the global temp .5 C.

We certainly need to do the easy stuff.
But the easy stuff is not going to add up to what is needed, or anything but a tiny fraction of what is needed. Much more radical changes are needed immediately.

If everyone did it, it would make a huge difference. Why do we need radical changes immediately? Radical changes usually overcompensate and create other problems. As we can see when government does it.

It will take government mandates and government action to begin to approach what is needed, or to do it on the time scale needed.

If humanity would do it on their own, it would not.

Fantastic, but the scale of change being talked about is at whole systems levels. If every catholic does what you do, that's still not approaching what's needed. Like other social justice encyclicals, it addresses the system.

I disagree that if every Catholic does it, it's still not enough. Better if every Christian.

As it makes clear, that there is a problem is settled.

A problem of inequality of resource usage? Sure!

Exactly what the outcomes are won't be settled until it's too late.

Too late for what? I don't think God will let humans destroy His creation.

As meaningful as saying "I'm all for people's drinking water being clean, as long as the government doesn't interfere in the right to polute it upstream or do anything about it".

Again, you take a very narrow view of what I wrote. THINK. SUBSIDIARITY.

The level of the problem is well beyond the indivudal.

If there is a global problem, at all, which many dispute.

 

[ebia]

Baloney. I sacrifice a lot. I know lots of people that do, too. If everyone would do their part of their own, it would make a huge difference, much more than what Kyoto suggested, which would, at best, alter the global temp .5 C.

According to the Pope the systems have to change.

. Why do we need radical changes immediately?

Because the problem is immediate and we've left it too late to dither.
When catastrophe is looming, you don't have the luxury of changing things slowly

Radical changes usually overcompensate and create other problems. As we can see when government does it.
If humanity would do it on their own, it would not.
I disagree that if every Catholic does it, it's still not enough. Better if every Christian.
A problem of inequality of resource usage? Sure!
Too late for what? I don't think God will let humans destroy His creation.
Again, you take a very narrow view of what I wrote. THINK. SUBSIDIARITY.
If there is a global problem, at all, which many dispute.

You're disagreeing with an encyclical you haven't read. Congratulations.

 

[smaneck]

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.

Not so. I have one child and I expect to have no only enough resources to live to ripe old age but I also expect my son to inherit a sizeable portion. But having social welfare programs as well helps. Where no social nets exist and when work is not readily available for adults, then children work and parents produce lots of them.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I suspect he would favor a more conservative form of government, but conservative in the 18th and 19th century sense of the word when conservatism was combating classical liberalism. I'm not saying he would return to monarchical forms of government, but I do think he sees government as having a paternal interest in its citizenry which modern day conservatives decry as the 'nanny state.'

A paternal interest in citizenry is much different than what we have from government today.

That's true but this precisely the direction in which the Austrian School and right would like to take us. And thanks to big businesses 'unbridled' contributions to political campaigns they seem to be able to buy congressional elections if they still can't buy the presidency.

You think they didn't buy the presidency??? Ha. It is true that left unchecked, capitalists would love to be unbridled, and that even 'bridled' we go too far (have you seen the TV's walking out of Costco on a given day???). But part of the reason for that is that we don't have a sense of God anymore.

That's true of the Catholic Church. It is not true of the evangelical right. They'd like to get rid of Social Security and Medicare.

I would, too. People think SSI is "their retirement", when it cannot be. But the government sells it like that. Same with Medicare. Teach people real principals of how to build wealth and save for a rainy day. You won't need blanket medical coverage. All you need is to be insured for catastrophe. You can pay for doctor visits and emergency, if you save and don't live paycheck to paycheck. If you can't afford to live, the government should help you, with the understanding that you will eventually get off the snide.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not really. That was the case in the 70's and 80's when we first starting importing Japanese autos with good MPGs. Today most the fuel efficiency comes from better designed automatic transmissions and hybrids. A midsize car's mileage now is as good as an economy car. Midsize cars are not lightweight. There are cars sold in India and Africa that get even better mileage but those cars cannot be sold in the US because they aren't safe. I'm thinking of cars like the ones produced by Tata Motors which cost only 3 or 4K.

You would consider aluminum engine blocks a good safety feature? I don't. I've seen the results of accidents these days, and I drive very cautiously. I will not drive a mid-size. Not safe. I drive a bigger vehicle, just not very much. About 5000 miles a year.

 

[smaneck]

The only ways to seriously change the way we're going, is population reduction on a massive scale. We're at 7.2 billion and if current trends continue it will be close to 10 billion by 2050. That's assuming we can all feed and water ourselves. Probably water shortages will slow that down.

I used to believe that, but back then (in the '70's) I was told the world's population would reach 8 billion by the turn of the century. The fact of the matter is that population growth is slowing. Current trends suggest we will be at about 9 billion by 2050, not 10. As people's standard of living and education rises, they have less children. And no one has to coerce them into doing so.

If not, expect food to rocket in price, along with water.

Food has already rocketed in price. We Americans barely noticed because we spend only 7% of our income on food. But in the Middle East, where people spend fully half their income on food, the rise in prices has been catastrophic. It was only the major causes of the Arab Spring.

What can we do? Contraception, Sterilisation and abortion for those who don't want to comply. The Third World has to step up to the plate of lose it's Aid. 3.5 billion is probably sustainable.

Both China and India tried those coercive means. In India it brought down the Gandhis. In China they were able to enforce their 'one child' rule but that has created other problems. I think with a more equitable distribution of wealth we could support more people than we currently have, but not much more. People in Third World countries have more children because they are poor and have no other safety nets. When their standard of living rises their populations will decrease. One of the "simple solutions" would be to vigorously enforce child labor laws. That will increase adult employment and decrease the advantages of having more children.

 

[smaneck]

I was talking about the West. You missed out the part with less consumers, the Third World will have less money, so they will need to reduce their number of mouths to feed. Imagine China with half or less of it's economy gone.

Maybe you haven't heard but the Third World is perfectly capable of producing its own consumers. And they aren't going to stop making stuff for us because they make them cheaper.