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

[ebia]

Let's try using the principal of subsidiarity? Individual buy-in works in cases where individuals have a choice, such as to recycle plastics,

To get anything like enough recycling of plastic you have to tax landfill, build cost incentives into the scheme, give people big recycling bins and small landil bins,... And still is very, very, marginal for most plastic - recycling plastic is a bit less bad than not. Persuading consumers necessary, but not sufficient to make enough difference.

or not drive the 1.5 miles to the bus stop. 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.

The Pope's sentiments are that we have to massively change the whole system, and fast. Have you read the thing?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Ecumenical Patriarch is first among equals as he has always been; his actual patriarchate is rather small in size and scope. First among equals doesn't not imply as much influence as you might think. And no, his opinions are not held as more than the opinion of ONE patriarch. The Russian Patriarch, in reality, is infinitely more powerful mostly do to size and population of his flock. This EP is "too" ecumenical for the taste of most.

Regarding Ravenna, it's not an ecumenical council, and nobody has ever said the Pope DOESNT have a primacy of honor. Orthodox have been saying as much for centuries!

"41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first"

I thought that Patriarch Bartholomew was a bit more than just one of the patriarchs. Isn't he very well thought of? In his role as Patriarch of Constantinople and Ecumenical Pope, should his views be considered as more than just the opinion of one patriarch?

I understand that there is no Orthodox pope. After all, at Rivenna, the Orthodox (expect for the non-attending patriarch of Moscow) agreed that the Patriarch of the West is protus, the highest of equal patriarchs.

 

[mark46]

To get anything like enough recycling of plastic you have to tax landfill, build cost incentives into the scheme, give people big recycling bins and small landil bins,... And still is very, very, marginal for most plastic - recycling plastic is a bit less bad than not. Persuading consumers necessary, but not sufficient to make enough difference.


The Pope's sentiments are that we have to massively change the whole system, and fast. Have you read the thing?

Are you really saying that recycling doesn't make much of a difference. I certainly disagree.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...-global-warming/2007/10/04/1191091278424.html

And yes, the pope is talking about major shifts in patterns of behavior. Of course, CO2 and climate change initiatives are only one part of the effort needed. Water may be a crisis that is almost as important.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprint_n_5952862.html

Let's say that you family shared a meal where beef was the part of the main course, with the family sharing just ONE pound of beef. That pound used 1847 gallons of water to produce.

 

[paulm50]

The Pope isn't a REAL Christian! Climate Change is a scam perpetrated by millionaire research scientists to keep getting funding! Climate Gate! It still snows in the Winter! Al Gore uses lots of electricity! God will intervene and stop it from happening! Why do you hate America? Benghazi! 9/11! Communism! Socialism! Obama is the anti-Christ!

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.

 

[ebia]

Are you really saying that recycling doesn't make much of a difference.

Recycling plastic is marginal. Better than not, but it still consumes a lot of energy.
Really, we need to significantly reduce our use of the stuff.

Not all recycling is equal. Metals, high value minerals, glass, paper, ... are much more recyclable.

I certainly disagree.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...-global-warming/2007/10/04/1191091278424.html

And yes, the pope is talking about major shifts in patterns of behavior. Of course, CO2 and climate change initiatives are only one part of the effort needed. Water may be a crisis that is almost as important.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprint_n_5952862.html

The two are obviously connected. As climate change shifts rainfall patterns and forces mass migrations of people water shortage for many will get massively worse.

Let's say that you family shared a meal where beef was the part of the main course, with the family sharing just ONE pound of beef. That pound used 1847 gallons of water to produce.

 

[paulm50]

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.

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

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.

Assuming this isn't nature doing what it does every few million years and culling the species, so the Earth continues. Then all the evangelists can claim it's their prophecy coming true.

And if anyone thinks there's a simple answer, they haven't read up on the subject.

 

[ebia]

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.

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

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.

Assuming this isn't nature doing what it does every few million years and culling the species, so the Earth continues. Then all the evangelists can claim it's their prophecy coming true.

And if anyone thinks there's a simple answer, they haven't read up on the subject.

If each person in the west consumes many, many times the natural resources of, say, each person in Bangladesh, isn't "reduce the global population" as much a simplistic answer as any other?

 

[Root of Jesse]

To get anything like enough recycling of plastic you have to tax landfill, build cost incentives into the scheme, give people big recycling bins and small landil bins,... And still is very, very, marginal for most plastic - recycling plastic is a bit less bad than not. Persuading consumers necessary, but not sufficient to make enough difference.

Very narrow minded of you to only use the example I gave. There's thousands more.

The Pope's sentiments are that we have to massively change the whole system, and fast. Have you read the thing?

No, I have a job. Have you?

 

[paulm50]

Recycling plastic is marginal. Better than not, but it still consumes a lot of energy.
Really, we need to significantly reduce our use of the stuff.

Not all recycling is equal. Metals, high value minerals, glass, paper, ... are much more recyclable.

The only solution is to not produce the goods in the first place, or produce a whole let less of them.

The two are obviously connected. As climate change shifts rainfall patterns and forces mass migrations of people water shortage for many will get massively worse.

It's already happening, research the Earth's water reserves. The water might run out before the oil does.

They calculate we have 50 to 100 years worth of oil left. At present consumption rates, water will never last that long. Turn off the sprinklers, share a shower or use a bowl, drain the pool, let the car get dirty.

 

[paulm50]

If each person in the west consumes many, many times the natural resources of, say, each person in Bangladesh, isn't "reduce the global population" as much a simplistic answer as any other?

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.

Not as simple as it seems.

The alternative is we carry on as we are and enjoy the party, until the light go out!!!

 

[mark46]

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.

Not as simple as it seems.

The alternative is we carry on as we are and enjoy the party, until the light go out!!!

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.

 

[ebia]

Very narrow minded of you to only use the example I gave. There's thousands more.

I can only address the argument you give; to do otherwise would be me creating a strawman.

No, I have a job.

How can you claim that your position isn't in conflict with the Pope's until you know what his position is?

Have you?

I'm in the process of reading it. And it's painfully obvious that what he is calling for is massive and rapid systemic change not achievable by individual buy in alone.

 

[ebia]

The only solution is to not produce the goods in the first place, or produce a whole let less of them.

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

It's already happening, research the Earth's water reserves. The water might run out before the oil does.

They calculate we have 50 to 100 years worth of oil left. At present consumption rates, water will never last that long. Turn off the sprinklers, share a shower or use a bowl, drain the pool, let the car get dirty.

As an individual, already done.

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.

 

[ebia]

I was talking about the West.

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.)

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.

Not as simple as it seems.

The alternative is we carry on as we are and enjoy the party, until the light go out!!!

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.

 

[ebia]

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.

Well, they do use a bit less. But what we've tended to do isn't to use less fuel but to buy bigger cars and drive further, keeping our excessive consumption relatively untouched.

 

[mark46]

I'm in the process of reading it. And it's painfully obvious that what he is calling for is massive and rapid systemic change not achievable by individual buy in alone.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

The most significant role may be that taken governments, so our political input may be our most important contribution. 58% of
US emissions are from the production of electricity or from the transportation sector.

France produces 8% of its electricity from fossil fuel. The number is much larger in Canada, 22%. The US and the UK come in at 68% and 71%. Clearly, a greater emphasis on nuclear, solar and wind power would bring US number closer to that of Canada and France. Also, we need to recognize that we will need lots more electricity, since the transportation dusty will use more and more.

With regard to transportation, the US government has done a good job of reducing emissions in vehicles, by the consistent increasing of mpg standards. These need to applied more to trucks and buses. Also, we need to support more fleet use of electric and natural gas vehicles (which as much better than oil vehicles).

Government also had a role in determining standards used in industry and agriculture. These are the next two sectors where there are large uses of CO2.

As individuals, we do have choices, in the products that we buy, in what we eat and in the politicians that we support. For example, eating ONE pound of beef uses 1847 gallons of water. I understand that this isn't directly related to emissions, but it is an eye-popping example. Individuals can calculate their carbon footprint and donate money to organizations that reduce worldwide carbon emissions, such as those that support the rainforests. Obviously, we use less emissions if we eat locally produced organic produce. Also, an obvious behavior for individuals is to recycle and to lower water usage.

 

[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 the encyclical 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

 

[mark46]

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.)

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.

 

[ebia]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

The most significant role may be that taken governments, so our political input may be our most important contribution. 58% of
US emissions are from the production of electricity or from the transportation sector.

France produces 8% of its electricity from fossil fuel. The number is much larger in Canada, 22%. The US and the UK come in at 68% and 71%. Clearly, a greater emphasis on nuclear, solar and wind power would bring US number closer to that of Canada and France. Also, we need to recognize that we will need lots more electricity, since the transportation dusty will use more and more.

With regard to transportation, the US government has done a good job of reducing emissions in vehicles, by the consistent increasing of mpg standards. These need to applied more to trucks and buses. Also, we need to support more fleet use of electric and natural gas vehicles (which as much better than oil vehicles).

Government also had a role in determining standards used in industry and agriculture. These are the next two sectors where there are large uses of CO2.

As individuals, we do have choices, in the products that we buy, in what we eat and in the politicians that we support. For example, eating ONE pound of beef uses 1847 gallons of water. I understand that this isn't directly related to emissions, but it is an eye-popping example. Individuals can calculate their carbon footprint and donate money to organizations that reduce worldwide carbon emissions, such as those that support the rainforests. Obviously, we use less emissions if we eat locally produced organic produce. Also, an obvious behavior for individuals is to recycle and to lower water usage.

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

 

[ebia]

It says right in the encyclical 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

It seems to me that your choice of bolding massively distorts what the overall text says: that there are aspects of the question that still need to be worked out.