Climate denial is immoral, says US Episcopal church head

DiscussionsChristianity

Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.

Climate denial is immoral, says US Episcopal church head

Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.

2fuzzi
Mar 25, 2015, 9:12 am

Consider the source...

3John5918
Modifié : Mar 25, 2015, 10:28 am

>2 fuzzi: Not sure what you mean by that. The head of the US branch of one of the mainstream global Christian churches?

It is not inconsistent with Catholic Social Thought either.

4fuzzi
Modifié : Mar 25, 2015, 10:45 am

>3 John5918: consider the source, the lost-touch-with-God apostate Episcopal church. No offense to practicing Episcopalians: most of the members are nice people, but the hierarchy is a bunch of idiots, for the most part.

My opinion. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's... ;)

5John5918
Mar 25, 2015, 10:50 am

>4 fuzzi: Does that not then just become a form of argumentum ad hominem? Nothing good can come from the mouth of an Episcopalian bishop, so why bother to examine it on its own merits and marshal arguments against it?

Many Christians might say the same of US evangelical fundamentalist Christians - nice people, but their evangelists are a bunch of idiots, for the most part (NB: I'm not saying that, just drawing a parallel with what you said).

I believe they also said the same of a certain carpenter a while ago - nothing good can come out of Galilee.

6fuzzi
Mar 25, 2015, 10:54 am

John, I like you as a person, but I doubt we will never see eye-to-eye on these issues.

I came from the Episcopal church, I have sisters and family who also either used to be members or still are. I'm not just blowing out an opinion based on rumors.

Feel free to disagree. :)

7John5918
Mar 25, 2015, 11:00 am

>6 fuzzi: Thanks, fuzzi. No, we won't agree, and that's fine. I was just trying to explore the issue.

8fuzzi
Mar 25, 2015, 11:42 am

Have a lovely and blessed day, er, evening? It's about 12:00 here, time for lunch. :)

9southernbooklady
Mar 25, 2015, 6:18 pm

>1 John5918: From the link: The highest ranking woman in the Anglican communion has said climate denial is a “blind” and immoral position which rejects God’s gift of knowledge.

I was under the impression that knowledge wasn't a gift, it had to be stolen.

10hf22
Modifié : Mar 25, 2015, 8:31 pm

>3 John5918:

When you read the upcoming encyclical from the Pope, which has already been previewed, you will find it will not make the mistake of trying to turn the mainstream science into a theological truth. That was the mistake the Church made with Galileo after all.

It will assume the science, as the Church as no special competence from which to dispute it, and apply CST on the basis of that assumption.

Thus the Pope's encyclical will be eminently more sensible than Katharine Schori statement.

11John5918
Mar 26, 2015, 1:21 am

>10 hf22: But, as I said, probably not inconsistent.

12hf22
Mar 26, 2015, 2:47 am

>11 John5918:

Certainly not in outcome, being that responding to climate change and its effect on the environment and the poor is a moral requirement for Christians.

But the difference remains significant, and makes it much easier for people to dismiss Katharine Schori contribution, than it will be to dismiss the contribution to be made by Pope Francis.

It is also indicative of the theological mess the US Episcopal church is in, which speaks to fuzzi's point.

13timspalding
Modifié : Mar 26, 2015, 3:19 am

>10 hf22:

“Episcopalians understand the life of the mind is a gift of God and to deny the best of current knowledge is not using the gifts God has given you,” she said. “In that sense, yes, it could be understood as a moral issue.”

Is that what you're objecting to? I don't really see the theological problem with that. At the limit of an issue, refusing to go along with current science, especially without any compelling intellectual reason to, and where the lives of people is at issue, is surely morally culpable.

Consider if you were a contractor about to demolish a high-rise when your crew came to you with the news that many of them they saw people walking around in it through their binoculars. If you said "Well, I don't believe in assisted optics!" and blew the building, you'd be culpable, wouldn't you? The reality of optical lenses may not be theological truth, but blindly going against established human wisdom when there are lives at stake is surely a sort of murderous pride, and that is against theological truth.

See also vaccines, btw.

14hf22
Modifié : Mar 26, 2015, 3:34 am

>13 timspalding:

There is a difference between:

1) Acknowledging you have no special competence to dispute the science, and thus are obliged to act on the basis of its advice; and
2) Trying to turn the science into a theological truth.

The second was the mistake the Church made with Galileo (whose disagreement was mostly with mainstream scientific opinion at the time, rather than with Catholic doctrine per se).

Disputing the extent to which humans impact the climate may well be valid, for all the Church knows. Thus it has no place trying to say otherwise. All it can, and should say, is that prudence dictates we operate on the assumption that mainstream scientific opinion is right. And it should be noted, in the previews of the upcoming Papal encyclical by the relevant Curia department head, this distinction was properly made.

Denying the "best of current knowledge" is, after all, precisely what the scientific method is always doing with God's gifts. Its knowledge is provisional.

Now climate change denier and anti-vaccine types often are not actually doing science, of course, but rather spewing ignorance. But the Church can't judge that on its own authority - It can only assume it on the authority of others.

15timspalding
Modifié : Mar 26, 2015, 3:41 am

>14 hf22:

Okay, but are you saying that the Episcopals are doing number 2? I seems to me they are doing number 1.

The Galileo affair is not so simply dismissed. The church did not in that case support one science against another, or turn science "into" theological truth. It made explicitly theological/scriptural arguments. And it insisted that something--something bogus--was part of ineluctable Catholic truth. The problem seems rather turning theological opinion, supported by scriptural arguments, into fixed doctrine. Now where have I heard that recently?

16hf22
Modifié : Mar 26, 2015, 3:51 am

>15 timspalding:

Okay, but are you saying that the Episcopals are doing number 2? I seems to me they are doing number 1.

My read is number 2. They are trying to judge the science, which is not really their competence.

The Galileo affair is not so simply dismissed. The church did not in that case support one science against another, or turn science "into" theological truth. It made explicitly theological/scriptural arguments. And it insisted that something--something bogus--was part of ineluctable Catholic truth.

Well, it more complex, but one science against another seems to me why they got into that mess. The theological/scriptural arguments seems to have followed, rather than lead.

But that is a big rabbit hole, and surely we can agree the Church picking winners between scientific arguments is a good way to end up look dumb.

The problem seems rather turning theological opinion, supported by scriptural arguments, into fixed doctrine. Now where have I heard that recently?

The problem was making fixed doctrine? Because that is how ALL fixed doctrine is made.

And I thought you had confirmed to me only the other day that you do agree the Church can and does teach infallible and timeless doctrine? Or not really? Back to historical consciousness and no real revelation or truth belonging to the Church, so it can be free to accept your various pet ideas?

17southernbooklady
Mar 26, 2015, 10:47 am

>13 timspalding: “Episcopalians understand the life of the mind is a gift of God and to deny the best of current knowledge is not using the gifts God has given you,” she said. “In that sense, yes, it could be understood as a moral issue."

It seems to me she's not saying that the science is moral or immoral, but that willful ignorance is immoral. Is it? Is it indeed immoral not to use "the gifts God has given you" (one of which is scientific understanding)?

18Jesse_wiedinmyer
Mar 26, 2015, 9:38 pm

Because past environmental destruction was the result of ignorance, we can easily forgive it. Today, we are better informed. Therefore, it’s essential that we make an ethical examination of what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations. Ours is clearly a pivotal generation. We have global communication and yet confrontation is more common than dialogue. ~ Dalai Lama

19hf22
Mar 26, 2015, 10:25 pm

>17 southernbooklady:

Hmmmm. I would be hesitant to call failing at scientific understanding immoral.

Perhaps because "scientific understanding" is not a gift available to all, say because of lack of education or aptitude. I don't much like things which could end up as excuses to deem poor or simple people to be immoral.

And really, most of us accept the science based on authority and trust, rather than understanding anyway. The difference between an ordinary Joe who accepts climate change, and one who does not, often comes down to who they do and do not trust (i.e. rather than any greater level of understand by one over the other).

In which case, the climate denier would be more victim, than criminal.

20John5918
Mar 27, 2015, 1:32 am

>19 hf22: not a gift available to all

From those to whom much is given, much is expected, as the good book says. Many people have gifts (and/or responsibilities) not given to all, and that makes those people more culpable; for them it is certainly immoral not to take their responsibility and understanding seriously. As we say in the confiteor, "for what I have done and for what I have failed to do".

the climate denier would be more victim

That may well be the case for those who don't have the tools to make a critical assessment of their own but who rely on those who should know better.

21hf22
Modifié : Mar 27, 2015, 2:37 am

>20 John5918:

From those to whom much is given, much is expected, as the good book says.

Yes, that is certainly true.

But on the other hand, I don't think a professional scientist who merely holds a minority view is immoral for doing so, even if it turns out they are in fact wrong. Less likely views still need to be tested and proposed for science to work as it should.

I mean, if there are any who are spreading misinformation for financial advantage, like say the cigarette companies did, then that would be immoral. But outside that, it is hard to say it is immoral.

Certainly, outside that example, a climate change skeptic could well be so with a clear conscience.

That may well be the case for those who don't have the tools to make a critical assessment of their own but who rely on those who should know better.

Yes. But I think lots of people are in that boat. I mean, I can't really do a "critical assessment of my own" on climate science. I am really just accepting an argument from authority, being that of mainstream climate scientist.

Which is fine and valid for me to so, I think, but does not make me any smarter than a climate change skeptic.

22John5918
Modifié : Mar 27, 2015, 2:38 am

>21 hf22: if there are any who are spreading misinformation for financial advantage, like say the cigarette companies did, then that would be immoral

Agreed, but what about those who spread an anti-climate change view for ideological, political, religious and/or economic reasons/advantage?

23margd
Modifié : Mar 27, 2015, 10:26 am

Not only the poor will feel effects, though our relative wealth will buffer. The US faces western drought and inundation of its eastern cities. Failure of the Gulf current could chill countries like Great Britain. In our children and grandchildren's time, if not ours. Surely self-interest will finally trump willful ignorance and those who benefit from it.

One can doubt that humans caused global warming, and one can hope that worst predictions are incorrect, but there is little doubt as to what we must do to avoid likely catastrophe.

24hf22
Mar 27, 2015, 3:17 am

>22 John5918:

Agreed, but what about those who spread an anti-climate change view for ideological, political, religious and/or economic reasons/advantage

If done so in a strategic way, without genuine belief, then yes immoral.

But if you went any broader than that, it would be to declare that genuine disagreement with a consensus is immoral. And while there are people who think that, I am sure you do not.

25John5918
Mar 27, 2015, 5:04 am

>24 hf22: I agree of course that disagreement with a consensus is not immoral; indeed sometimes it represents the moral stance because of its substance, or at least it may be the moral thing for the individual to do because she believes in it even if she subsequently turns out to be proven wrong. But disagreement with it because it would hurt your economic interests, or because of the political ideology which supports those economic interests, might be immoral.

It might also be immoral if someone chooses not to examine the issue. I think of all those white South Africans I know who say, "We didn't know what was going on". Well, maybe they didn't, but once they received teensy weensy hints that something might be amiss they had a moral obligation to look and find out.

26hf22
Mar 27, 2015, 5:38 am

>25 John5918:

I agree of course that disagreement with a consensus is not immoral; indeed sometimes it represents the moral stance because of its substance, or at least it may be the moral thing for the individual to do because she believes in it even if she subsequently turns out to be proven wrong.

Agreed.

But disagreement with it because it would hurt your economic interests, or because of the political ideology which supports those economic interests, might be immoral.

I entirely agree.

It might also be immoral if someone chooses not to examine the issue. I think of all those white South Africans I know who say, "We didn't know what was going on". Well, maybe they didn't, but once they received teensy weensy hints that something might be amiss they had a moral obligation to look and find out.

Agreed as well.

It might also be immoral to refuse to support prudent measures to deal with climate change, just based on the possible risk, even if on balance you disagreed.

But I am uncomfortable with trying to make an honest disagreement with a scientific view, which has real if relatively small error bars, into a moral question per se. So it is important we make these distinctions.

27nathanielcampbell
Mar 27, 2015, 8:06 am

As I understand you, >10 hf22: and ff., you feel the strength of Francis' approach over Schorri's is that it articulates a positive moral duty from Scripture (and tradition), rather than merely declaring judgement upon those who disagree? I.e., it's the difference between (a) declaring, "X is wrong," and (b) articulating why, "Y is the right thing to do"?

28hf22
Modifié : Mar 27, 2015, 9:05 am

>27 nathanielcampbell:

Partly, yes.

I think the strength is also that Francis' approach does not get bogged down off his own turf. It just assumes the science, because he has no basis to question it (i.e. as prudence), and then applies Christian moral teaching from there.

29southernbooklady
Mar 27, 2015, 9:15 am

>27 nathanielcampbell: (a) declaring, "X is wrong," and (b) articulating why, "Y is the right thing to do"?

Meaning, it is not immoral to deny climate change exists, but it is immoral not to take action to mitigate its effects? That seems like a bit of a conundrum. I got the impression that Katherine Jeffers Schori was calling for something a little different -- that it is immoral not to bring your entire faculty of understanding to bear on an issue in order to grasp its moral relevancy. It's almost a, well, scientific approach - a rational approach -- to moral agency. A cousin, perhaps, to the call to follow one's conscience regardless of what those in authority tell you is right.

Of course, Schori also seems to be saying that if one does bring one's entire faculty of understanding to bear on the issue of climate change, the moral conclusion is the obvious one that she herself has reached. That's a little problematic, at least in theory.

Since I live in a coastal/barrier island community, climate change (in the form of rising sea levels) is something that comes up quite often, especially in an election year. But there is a fairly strong consensus about it. The scientific community and the insurance industry say it exists and act accordingly -- it's impossible to get flood insurance here. The developers and homeowners say that it doesn't, and also act accordingly -- they continue to build houses on low-lying land.

So are those homeowners immoral for rejecting scientific data? Their motives for doing so are understandable and not necessarily malicious. It's really more like they suffer from hubris, which is, as Tim suggested above a version of the sin of pride.

30hf22
Modifié : Mar 27, 2015, 9:40 am

>29 southernbooklady:

Meaning, it is not immoral to deny climate change exists, but it is immoral not to take action to mitigate its effects? That seems like a bit of a conundrum.

That would be my basic view. With the link being the moral virtue of prudence, in that it may or may not be happening, but that does not allow it to simply be ignored.

Of course, Schori also seems to be saying that if one does bring one's entire faculty of understanding to bear on the issue of climate change, the moral conclusion is the obvious one that she herself has reached. That's a little problematic, at least in theory.

Yeah, that is my issue. It seems to turn a empirical scientific question into a moral one. Which could, though unlikely in this case, turn into calling someone who ends up being right immoral for being right (at least if we are taking a scientist who accepts a minority position).

And I am uncomfortable with that.

Their motives for doing so are understandable and not necessarily malicious.

That could also just be a gamble, which is not immoral per se, depending on the precise circumstances.

31southernbooklady
Mar 27, 2015, 10:30 am

>30 hf22: Yeah, that is my issue. It seems to turn a empirical scientific question into a moral one

So what happens when empirical scientific research challenges the assumptions upon which moral actions are made? What do you do then?

32timspalding
Modifié : Mar 27, 2015, 11:03 am

Resolved: Going against scientific consensus in a consequential issue, when you possess no good moral or intellectual grounds, is immoral.

Put another way: If scientists overwhelmingly say X is killing people, and you have no valid moral objection and refuse to educate yourself enough to either agree or disagree on reasonable grounds, you are acting immorally.

33hf22
Mar 27, 2015, 4:35 pm

>31 southernbooklady:

Reset the assumptions and reapply the moral principles. Which is easy to do if you have not tried to turn the assumptions into a moral truth in themselves.

34hf22
Mar 27, 2015, 4:42 pm

>32 timspalding:

Yes, I think the moral virtue of prudence gets that conclusion.

But I suppose those who reject climate change do think they have reasonable grounds, even if those grounds might boil down to say just trusting the wrong people.

35rrp
Mar 28, 2015, 7:38 pm

I mostly agree with h22 (except about Galileo). The bishop does seem to be overstepping the mark. But what is missing is some perspective of any solutions to the adverse effects of climate change and how they will affect the poor. At least the Pope is proposing a solution -- the complete overthrow of capitalism. The bishop should have concern for the poor and so should have concern for any proposed steps that might be taken by governments, most of which will hurt the poor. How are we to rate the morality of steps which might counter climate change?

37margd
Modifié : Mar 30, 2015, 7:21 am

If it finally triggers action, Pope Francis's encyclical letter on the environment can't come too soon, as well into the anthropocene, we have triggered a mass extinction event, global warming, and a "homogecene", the latter through global transport of weedy species, etc.

The Pope rightly challenges a throw-away, rapacious system that has the average westerner consuming much more than others, but the ecological footprints* of China and India are also large, due to large populations. We are the ultimate weedy species, and, ultimately, to preserve the world that sustains us, we must contain population growth. Eventually, Pope Francis or a successor must accommodate effective contraception.

*********************************************************

The ecological footprint is a measure of the area needed to support a
population’s lifestyle. This includes the consumption of food, fuel, wood,
and fibres. Pollution, such as carbon dioxide emissions, is also counted as
part of the footprint.

The United States, China and India have the largest ecological footprints.
Without knowing population size we cannot understand what this means
about individuals’ ecological demands. Large populations live in China and
India. In both territories resource use is below the world average. The per
person footprint in the United States is almost five times the world average,
and almost ten times what would be sustainable.

http://www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_map322_ver5.pdf

38hf22
Mar 30, 2015, 7:28 am

>37 margd:

I think you will find the Pope opposes this kind of anti human approach to environmental issues. The solution is not to treat people, well the poor if we are honest, as in any way akin to weeds.

39margd
Mar 30, 2015, 12:11 pm

Hmm, I wondered how anyone who can toss around epithets like anathema could object to the adjective weedy, but then, googling I came up with some eugenics leads.

However, I think the Pope might agree that at our worst, our behavior with respect to the environment has much in common with weeds--and we westerners are more invasive than most.

What are Noxious and Invasive Weeds?
What is a noxious weed?

The term "weed" means different things to different people. In the broadest sense, it is any plant growing where it is not wanted. Weeds can be native or non-native, invasive or non invasive, and noxious or not noxious. Legally, a noxious weed is any plant designated by a Federal, State or county government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife or property. (Sheley, Petroff, and Borman,1999) A noxious weed is also commonly defined as a plant that grows out of place and is "competitive, persistent, and pernicious." (James, et al, 1991).

Are invasive plants the same as noxious weeds?

Not necessarily, although many noxious weeds are invasive. Invasive plants include not only noxious weeds, but also other plants that are not native to this country or to the area where they are growing. The BLM considers plants invasive if they have been introduced into an environment where they did not evolve. As a result, they usually have no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread (Westbrooks, 1998). Some invasive plants can produce significant changes to vegetation, composition, structure, or ecosystem function. (Cronk and Fuller, 1995).

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/weeds/weed_definition.html

40hf22
Mar 30, 2015, 5:46 pm

>39 margd:

You know what we do with weeds? We destroy them, in order to preserve other more valuable things. An anathema, an excommunication, is designed as a medicine to assist people.

But we don't help weeds. It is a horrible analogy to apply to any person, or group of persons.

Because the lives of all people are valuable. And we should manage the environment better precisely because they are valuable, and not because they are relatively worthless weeds.

41margd
Mar 30, 2015, 9:05 pm

>40 hf22: You know what we do with weeds? We destroy them, in order to preserve other more valuable things.

Weedy species share the following characteristics (1) reproduce quickly, (2) disperse widely, (3) tolerate a broad range of habitats, (4) resist eradication. Very, very, very few invasive species can be eradicated BTW, and managing impacts is so expensive that resources are directed only at worst offenders, e.g., Sea Lamprey. Mediterranean Fruit fly. Caulerpa. Purple Loosetrife. Rabbits and Carp down your way.

Anyway, if you examine the facts with a cool head, you cannot deny that we are a weedy species. We could curb our effect on the environment, but there is an undeniable limit to carrying capacity of our environment--and we are already beginning to bump against it.

42hf22
Modifié : Mar 30, 2015, 9:58 pm

>41 margd:

Anyway, if you examine the facts with a cool head, you cannot deny that we are a weedy species.

I can deny, and do deny, that talk of eradication has any place in a discussion of people. Nor will I ever accept such talk with a "cool head".

Indeed, it is precisely this kind of talk which freaks me out about the green movement. It can lead to some very dark places very quickly. Mass and forced sterilizations for example would be very easy to morally justify, or indeed to come to seem as morally required, under these types of conceptions.

We could curb our effect on the environment, but there is an undeniable limit to carrying capacity of our environment--and we are already beginning to bump against it.

There is undeniably a hard limit to the carrying capacity of our planet, thought what the number actually is can not be estimated, given that technological improvement will continue to expand the envelope.

But creation does not stop at the atmosphere of the earth. There is an entire universe, indeed perhaps more than one, which surround us. To the extent it is possible, expanding beyond our small little world must be preferred, before we start treating people like weeds to be eradicated.

I would refer you to Cardinal Peter Turkson, the Ghanaian prelate and President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who gave a lecture at St. Patrick’s Pontifical University, Maynooth. He titled it “Integral ecology and the horizon of hope: concern for the poor and for creation in the ministry of Pope Francis." (https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/%E2%80%9Ctilled-too-much-and-kept-too-little%E2%80%9D-outline-ecology-encyclical).

This has been also called "An outline of the Pope’s forthcoming encyclical".

There is no talk of "weeds" here, but it instead starts with the human person, particularly the poor.

43rrp
Mar 30, 2015, 10:50 pm

The are no weeds in nature. There are weeds in gardens. There are weeds in fields. A weed is a plant that a human thinks is in the wrong place.

Humans label humans as weeds if they think they are in the wrong place. A human who is labeled as being in the wrong place is usually poor. The human doing the labeling is usually rich. To label humans as weeds is wrong. Humans are not weeds.

44rrp
Modifié : Mar 30, 2015, 11:25 pm

If you believe that climate change is immoral, here are some moral things you should do.

1. Stop using your car and never fly.
2. Stop heating your house when it's cold and cooling it when it's hot.
3. Wash yourself and your clothes as little as necessary.
4. Live in a big city.
5. Eat as a vegetarian, buying only food produced by large factory farms, preferably GMOs.
6. Support the expansion of nuclear power.
7. Paint your roof white.

ETA. I forgot one.

8. If you live in a temperate zone, chop down the trees.

46hf22
Mar 31, 2015, 2:24 am

>43 rrp:

Humans label humans as weeds if they think they are in the wrong place. A human who is labelled as being in the wrong place is usually poor. The human doing the labelling is usually rich. To label humans as weeds is wrong. Humans are not weeds.

Yeah, this.

To call something a "weed" is a value judgement. A value judgement which entails it would be better off destroyed. And thus not a value judgement which should ever be applied to people.

47John5918
Mar 31, 2015, 3:44 am

>46 hf22: Except in the case of Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men in which case the little weed was a positive thing.

48hf22
Mar 31, 2015, 4:06 am

>47 John5918:

I didn't watch that one as a child, so all I am getting in my head is an image of children characters getting stoned on weed.

But in any case, what is your view of calling people weeds?

49John5918
Mar 31, 2015, 4:42 am

>48 hf22: Not a conversation I really want to get involved in. I find the ecological discussion more interesting.

50rrp
Mar 31, 2015, 6:01 am

Little Weed was a poor exploited character trapped in the background of a male dominated society, thorougly manipulated and controlled by those higher-ups in power, the masters who pulled the strings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcF9JSxkUSE

51hf22
Mar 31, 2015, 7:12 am

>49 John5918:

And the interaction between ecology and the poor?

52John5918
Mar 31, 2015, 7:15 am

>50 rrp: Yes, you're probably right, although I have to confess I never noticed that when I was a wee lad!

53John5918
Mar 31, 2015, 7:16 am

>51 hf22: Very important. It's not either/or, it has to be both/and. There are many areas where a breakdown of ecology has an adverse affect on human life, particularly that of the poor. Most richer societies have barely noticed climate change, but in many poorer societies it has been a dangerous reality for a long time.

54hf22
Mar 31, 2015, 8:41 am

>53 John5918:

And this is I think the lesson Catholic thought has to share with mainstream ecology. People, the poor in particular, are not the problem.

They are, in large part, for whom the solution is needed.

That is, they are not the weeds. They should instead, all of them, be the gardeners. Called to tend and keep the garden of creation, not to be removed from it.

55southernbooklady
Mar 31, 2015, 9:21 am

>53 John5918: Most richer societies have barely noticed climate change, but in many poorer societies it has been a dangerous reality for a long time.

My favorite metaphor for the human species isn't weeds, it's locusts.

"Conservation" and ecology isn't really about valuing rare tree frogs over people. Or leaving wilderness "untouched" while the people around it all starve. It's about understanding how we exist in a system, and managing that in a sustainable way. (And as much as I'd love the idea, relying on our ability to make it to Mars when we've exhausted the resources of Earth does not seem like a good short-term solution to the problems we face as a voracious species currently stuck on this planet.)

Unfortunately, the only management we really embrace is the out-of-sight-out-of-mind kind.

56John5918
Mar 31, 2015, 9:25 am

>55 southernbooklady: It's about understanding how we exist in a system, and managing that in a sustainable way.

Well said, Nicki.

57rrp
Mar 31, 2015, 9:39 am

>55 southernbooklady:

It's about understanding how we exist in a system, and managing that in a sustainable way.

This, I too like. That's the way it should be.

But this

My favorite metaphor for the human species isn't weeds, it's locusts.

not so much. Like the weed analogy, it's also demeaning to humans (or maybe locusts). We are told that humans are just another species of animal, just as much a part of nature as locusts. Locusts are not moral animals. They just do what they do. No blame can be attached. Can we say the same about humans?

58margd
Modifié : Mar 31, 2015, 9:46 am

Eradication, removal, targeting the poor, human weeds--these are concepts hf22 introduced to the conversation. I used "weedy" as an adjective, but unfortunately laymen hear it as dandelions in a garden, with only one response possible (eradication, although we make dandelion wine of ours :-). I should not have used the term here: with its popular connotations, it derailed a potentially useful conversation.

I repeat:
Weedy species share the following characteristics (1) reproduce quickly, (2) disperse widely, (3) tolerate a broad range of habitats, (4) resist eradication (= persist).

Most weedy species that invade outside their range become naturalized. If extremely deleterious, society may spend the money to control invasive populations or otherwise minimize impacts (very rare). I don't think we have ever intentionally eradicated a nuisance species, not even smallpox.

At some point the human population will exceed the earth's carrying capacity. A sustainable future (and ultimately, more souls) require that we manage our ecological footprint: control consumption + control numbers. Pope Francis rightly targets the first, but the second will also need to be considered at some point. There are limits.

>44 rrp: If you believe that climate change is immoral, here are some moral things you should do.
8. If you live in a temperate zone, chop down the trees.

Um, we PLANT trees. Amazing how quickly one can transform "sunstroke acres"! I think the figure is that seven mature trees sequester carbon equivalent of a single car? Which isn't to say that there isn't much, much more we can do.

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Carbon Sequestration in Forests
Ross W. Gorte, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
August 6, 2009 | 26 p
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31432.pdf

59rrp
Mar 31, 2015, 9:57 am

>58 margd:

Um, we PLANT trees.

Grass takes up carbon at a faster rate than trees. It also provides a surface for snow to reflect more sunlight in winter (higher albedo.) Admittedly, it is harder to permanently sequester the carbon, but the same can be said of trees. In the long run, they both decay. But that's a problem to be solved. The choice shows how difficult it is to evaluate the options.

60southernbooklady
Mar 31, 2015, 12:09 pm

>57 rrp: Like the weed analogy, it's also demeaning to humans (or maybe locusts).

No it isn't. Locusts are what they are. (and actually, what they are is kind of interesting -- a morphological change in the common grasshopper) Human beings are what they are. From an empirical perspective they are simply entities within a system and are no more instrincally "good" or "bad" than leaves, tigers, rats, or e. coli. The key is to understand how they exist within their system.

In general, the surest way for a species to become extinct is loss of habitat. Human beings are good at adapting to different kinds of habitat (a plus from an evolutionary perspective) but the flip side of that trait is that they are not overly pressured to preserve any habitat they find themselves in. They live in a place until it can no longer support them, then they move. That in itself is a sustainable strategy as long as there are places to move to. But there is only one Earth, and if climate change results in a habitat we can't adapt to, then we are out of luck.

61John5918
Mar 31, 2015, 2:15 pm

>60 southernbooklady: Locusts are what they are

And they taste rather nice. Mind you, so do quite a few weeds.

Human beings... live in a place until it can no longer support them, then they move.

That was not necessarily the norm in the past. There are many parts of Europe, for example, where people farmed the same pieces of land for centuries; they had learned how to live in a balance with nature. I think it was different for the settlers in the USA, where there was a feeling that there was always more land to be taken. And since the industrial revolution, that balance has shifted more generally.

62WMGOATGRUFF
Mar 31, 2015, 3:54 pm

in re Tim's post in 32. May I enquire as to the morality (or lack thereof) of honest, presumably intelligent, God-fearing mothers who have been guided by many scientific broadsides purporting to question the efficacy of some vaccines and the pernicious effect of some of them to prompt them to deny vaccinations to their children using the underlying moral purpose of protecting their offspring as their reason? I really don't know quite how to respond to this conundrum. The vast majority of us know the salubrious effects of vaccinations and give them most readily to our offspring. Yet when you question these mothers (as it turns out most of the parents in attendance with their children are) who do not share this opinion, you are met with their honest position, earnestly held, that vaccinations will harm their child - a truly evil outcome. To my way of thinking this differs from the position of the climate change-deniers because these people so not appear to base their denial on moral grounds - or, as usual, I must be missing something.

63southernbooklady
Mar 31, 2015, 3:56 pm

>61 John5918: That was not necessarily the norm in the past. There are many parts of Europe, for example, where people farmed the same pieces of land for centuries

Sustainability at a social level is usually thought of in terms of an agrarian community, but we need a more complex approach now that we live with the realities of industrial and urbanized cultures, and now that changes in one locale can have far-reaching, even global effects. It's no longer sufficient to think in terms of our farm, or our village, or even our country when the things we do can impact people half a world away. We are all "downstream" from someone else in that sense.

64hf22
Modifié : Mar 31, 2015, 9:29 pm

>58 margd:

Eradication ... these are concepts hf22 introduced to the conversation ... I repeat ... Weedy species ... resist eradication (= persist).

Except you keep defining "weedy" as resists eradication. So it looks like you introduced it first (at >41 margd: in fact).

Pope Francis rightly targets the first, but the second will also need to be considered at some point.

That is far from clear. Both because technology can extend the ecological carrying capacity, and because off world options exist. There is simply no warrant for assuming population control is inevitable.

Further, from a Christian standpoint, population control is extremely undesirable (i.e. go forth and multiple etc). And thus the availability of other options means population control should only ever be a last resort, and one we might never need anyway.

65hf22
Modifié : Mar 31, 2015, 9:30 pm

>60 southernbooklady:

From an empirical perspective they are simply entities within a system and are no more instrincally "good" or "bad" than leaves, tigers, rats, or e. coli.

But from a moral perspective, they are very different, which is why such analogies are unfortunate. How you deal with weeds or locusts are just unacceptable for people, even if weeds, locusts and people can create similar environmental issues.

But there is only one Earth, and if climate change results in a habitat we can't adapt to, then we are out of luck.

But there are many worlds, some of which we may be able to adapt to. Which does not mean we can ruin this one, but it does mean the Earth's carrying capacity does not put a hard limit on the human population.

66nathanielcampbell
Modifié : Avr 1, 2015, 8:04 am

>65 hf22: "But there are many worlds, some of which we may be able to adapt to. Which does not mean we can ruin this one, but it does mean the Earth's carrying capacity does not put a hard limit on the human population."

But the technological advances that would make sizeable off-world colonization possible are pie-in-the-sky dreams, while the consequences of human ecological destruction are clear and present dangers.

(Though I agree with you that large-scale or institutional population control measures are likely to be at least as immoral as ecological destruction.)

67hf22
Mar 31, 2015, 9:58 pm

>66 nathanielcampbell:

But the technological advances that would make sizeable off-world colonization possible are pie-in-the-sky dreams.

I rather suspect, if population pressures started to get extreme, many of those technological advances could be found in relatively short order (i.e decades rather than centuries). They are not really technologies you can develop before you start doing it, but rather ones which would need to be developed in the process of doing it.

while the consequences of human ecological destruction are clear and present dangers

I am not sure something like climate change needs population controls to deal with it, even with present technology. It might need us to get relatively poorer, due to reductions in energy consumption or relying on more expensive green forms of energy generation, but I don't think it has been seriously proposed population reductions are required to deal with it.

The so called population issues still seem to be projections, i.e. if population and resource demand continues to grow, then in the mid-term future there will be increasing issues of habitat loss, waste management, resource shortages etc. And thus off world colonization is still potentially viable in the time frames concerned (say out to 2100).

Though I agree with you that large-scale or institutional population control measures are at likely to be least as immoral as ecological destruction.

It would likely breach Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if nothing else (i.e. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family).

If there were no other options, it might come to it, but I think all other available options need to be explored and used up first.

68rrp
Mar 31, 2015, 11:07 pm

>60 southernbooklady:

Yes, but locusts have a bad rap. Humans go to great lengths to destroy locusts, and that is a good thing. Mind you humans go to great lengths to destroy humans too, but that is a bad thing.

if climate change results in a habitat we can't adapt to

That's a big IF. What we need is not the extreme alarmism of Al Gore his fellow travelers nor the head-the-sand denial of the other crowd, but a well defined analysis of both the risks, costs and the benefits of climate change and the risk, costs and the benefits of any action we take to ameliorate the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, those who are trying to do that analysis are finding it heavy going. We just don't know enough yet to make the right decisions. There are things you can do as an individual (see list above) and there are things we can do collectively (l personally support a global carbon tax and an expansion of nuclear power. But a carbon tax is likely to be regressive and it didn't work so well politically in Australia and nuclear power has yet to recover from the Fukushima fiasco.)

69rrp
Modifié : Mar 31, 2015, 11:12 pm

>66 nathanielcampbell:

the consequences of human ecological destruction are clear and present dangers

The consequences, like the science, are not fully understood; the system is far too complex. The risks are certainly there, but the cost-benefit analysis of actions we might take are also not fully understood; they are also too complex. But we do probably know enough about the risks to do something, if only we could agree on what.

70rrp
Mar 31, 2015, 11:13 pm

And, one might add, nearly everything proposed will harm the poor.

71John5918
Avr 1, 2015, 1:30 am

>70 rrp: nearly everything proposed will harm the poor

If a rich nation such as the USA, as an example, were to reduce its ecological footprint a tad, it's not clear to me how that would necessarily harm the poor in other parts of the world. I concede that some measures proposed might harm the poor (possibly because they have been designed by the rich and have at least the implicit intention of keeping the rich rich?), but I would challenge your use of the words "everything proposed". And I suspect that if we were to look hard enough we would find that poor people have also made proposals which we tend not to notice.

72John5918
Avr 1, 2015, 1:33 am

>63 southernbooklady: we need a more complex approach now

True, of course. But I still sneakingly have sympathy for Thomas Berry who argued for more independent eco-systems and wrote, "Whenever people ask me what to do, I say, 'Blow up the bridges'!"

73John5918
Modifié : Avr 1, 2015, 1:42 am

On population size, clearly unlimited growth can cause problems, but I think one has to remember that:

1. A tiny percentage of the world's population is using a huge percentage of the world's resources at an unsustainable and wasteful rate out of all proportion to their numbers. Unfortunately the rest of the world is trying to catch up with this unsustainable lifestyle, but working to create a more realistic expectation for both rich and poor would at least buy some time. There is still potentially a lot of spare capacity if it is used sensibly.

2. In most parts of the world population growth has dropped rapidly when countries have become more developed. People are not poor because they have a lot of children; they have a lot of children because they are poor. Working to raise the level of development (and not necessarily to the unrealistic levels of Europe and north America) would almost certainly have a significant impact on population growth without needing to impose "control".

74John5918
Modifié : Avr 1, 2015, 2:45 am

Jeremy Clarkson joins Guardian drive for fossil fuel divestment (Guardian)

Former Top Gear presenter says being sacked by the BBC was a ‘wake-up call’ as he joins host of celebrities backing climate change campaign...

I suppose having Jeremy Clarkson on your side is a good thing... or not? Desmond Tutu is a better bet.

Desmond Tutu intervenes over King's College London's refusal to divest (Guardian)

Archbishop Tutu in talks with administration at his former university – where vice principal dealing with fossil fuel campaigners spent 30 years working for oil giant BP...

75southernbooklady
Avr 1, 2015, 9:02 am

>73 John5918: A tiny percentage of the world's population is using a huge percentage of the world's resources at an unsustainable and wasteful rate out of all proportion to their numbers.

I'm no economics expert, but rampant materialism and consumerism has an undeniable effect on both the environment and the welfare of the poor. Our demand for a ready supply of cheap goods that must be constantly replenished requires extremely cheap labor in often substandard conditions. But try telling that to the people who lined up to get the iPhone 6.

People are not poor because they have a lot of children; they have a lot of children because they are poor.

A sociology professor in college once told me sex is something to do when you can't afford to do anything else.

As someone mentioned above, there is an extremely cost-effective and low-tech, low-environmental impact, non-intrusive, self-determinant answer to concerns about over-population: Ready, easy access to contraception. But that means convincing a culture to embrace the benefits of using contraception, which remains an uphill battle.

76rrp
Avr 1, 2015, 9:16 am

>71 John5918:

If the USA reduced it's ecological footprint a tad, it would hardly make a dent in the problem. The strength of the US economy has a large impact on the world economy. If the US diverted efforts from buying consumer goods from China, India and the rest of the world that is relying on export driven growth, then the economies of those places would shrink and their poor would become poorer.

77rrp
Modifié : Avr 1, 2015, 9:18 am

>75 southernbooklady:

One good way to reduce population growth is to encourage the watching of television (by expanding coverage and subsidizing receivers.) Oh, and by encouraging and expanding the education of girls.

Unfortunately, neither does much for climate change.

78margd
Modifié : Avr 1, 2015, 9:34 am

>73 John5918: People are not poor because they have a lot of children; they have a lot of children because they are poor.
>75 southernbooklady: As someone mentioned above, there is an extremely cost-effective and low-tech, low-environmental impact, non-intrusive, self-determinant answer to concerns about over-population: Ready, easy access to contraception. But that means convincing a culture to embrace the benefits of using contraception, which remains an uphill battle.

In Thailand, healthcare and education (and economic opportunity) are what made parents begin to think of two kids as optimum. The kids you have will survive, you want to invest in their educations, and your own financial security in old age is assured. Family size came down in study I read, so I assume people had access to contraception, but abortion was not a significant part of the equation. (Buddhists.)

Culturally there already was desire for girl children, and thus the optimum family for most is a boy and a girl. Historically, the youngest daughter (and her husband) move into home of aged parents, and the daughter inherits the house. I think elsewhere education and opportunity for girls would have same effect.

The Thai experience is so different from top-down, one-child policy and the desire for sons elsewhere. I think Thailand's challenge is now extreme income inequality and resulting social ills.

79rrp
Modifié : Avr 2, 2015, 12:50 am

>78 margd:

You are right. Healthcare and education and economic opportunity are great ways to reduce population growth and poverty. Unfortunately, they cost money. They can only be obtained through economic growth, which can only be obtained by increasing energy use, and the most cost effective way of doing that is to burn things that contain carbon. As southernbooklady said "we need a more complex approach".

80John5918
Modifié : Avr 2, 2015, 2:32 pm

>79 rrp: They can only be obtained through economic growth, which can only be obtained by increasing energy use, and the most cost effective way of doing that is to burn things that contain carbon.

You make a lot of assumptions there, each one of which would need unpacking.

only - Really? You have empirically ruled out every other possibility?

economic growth - Free market capitalism? It's already discredited in many circles. Other models of economic growth? What about models which include both social and ecological costs in their calculations?

increasing energy use - What about more efficient energy use? What about reducing waste? What about alternative energy sources which are already being used on an increasing scale?

the most cost effective way of doing that is to burn things that contain carbon - Well, they obviously aren't the most cost effective way because we are now becoming aware of the huge cost of dealing with the problems they cause. They are only "cost effective" in the short-term for those who make money out of them, not for the world and its citizens.

It is indeed complex, and analysing it only in terms of the dying gasps of the current free market capitalist model is far too simplistic.

Edited to add:

Environmentally, an unbridled, run-amok growth is killing us (NCR)

Part of the problem is the failure of faith communities to challenge us directly about the pro-growth way we live. Unbridled, run-amok growth, which is what our nation's business leaders seem to want -- and Americans often mindlessly support... is killing us...

81rrp
Avr 3, 2015, 12:30 am

>80 John5918:

OK. We are talking about increasing peoples consumption of healthcare and education and increasing economic opportunity, i.e. the number of employed people. This is increased economic activity and economic growth is defined as increased economic active. So, yes, ever other option is ruled out, by definition.

Economic growth does not equal free market capitalism. Any increase in economic activity, whether in a command economy or a market economy is growth. The only way to improve the lot of the poor is to make them less poor, i.e. richer, i.e. to increase their contribution to overall economic activity, i.e. through economic growth. There is not other way to balance the equation.

Increased economic activity needs more inputs, one of which is energy. You are right that more efficient use of energy is a good thing and frees up money that can be spent on other things. In fact, increasing the efficient use of economic inputs the driver of economic growth; it allows us to create more outputs from the same inputs. But energy efficiency is limited and can get you only so far. It won't make the poor rich.

The most cost effective way for me to get more energy is to burn carbon. It may cost you if I do so, but that's not my problem. It's what's called an negative externality and the problem is that carbon fuels are too cheap; their actual cost does not reflect their true cost to us all. That's why a carbon tax would be a good thing; to price carbon fuels at their true cost to us all and encourage us use the alternatives. Unfortunately, carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich as energy use and things that require energy use, like food, make up a greater percentage of their overall expenditure.

Talking of alternative energy, the best carbon free source of alternative energy is hydroelectric power, but that is limited to regions which are geographically suitable and have lots of poor people who don't have the power to complain when they are evicted. The second best source of alternative energy is nuclear power, but we in the West, quite rightly, don't trust poor nations to use their knowledge of nuclear power wisely (see today's deal with Iran). All other sources of alternative energy are nowhere near sufficient to pull all the poor out of poverty. Sure, a little solar power can make a big difference if you are a small poor village somewhere sunny. But it doesn't scale. It can't make whole set of poor nations richer.

dying gasps of the current free market capitalist model

And reports of the death of capitalism are premature. To misquote Churchill, market based capitalism is the worse way to run an economy, apart from all the rest.

83StormRaven
Avr 8, 2015, 10:25 am

2: A member of a somewhat sane organization or you. Gee, I wonder whose opinion I should rely upon.

84rrp
Avr 8, 2015, 5:00 pm

>82 John5918:

That's a good article. Not much I would pick at there. What was your take?

85John5918
Modifié : Avr 9, 2015, 3:44 am

>84 rrp: Well, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Grauniad reader so what can I say? I note that some of the comments after that piece consider it a bit lightweight. I would say it's a little cautious and "establishment", but nevertheless a valuable contribution to the conversation.

One of the comments mentions stored energy, which reminds me of this article: Forget Dams: Let's Store Extra Energy in Rocks on Trains and Underwater Balloons.

86rrp
Avr 10, 2015, 4:38 pm

>86 rrp:

I would agree that the article is a little cautious, but probably in the other direction to you. What summed it up for me, which is also inline with your article in >85 John5918:, was this quote

“We absolutely can have growth and protection of the climate at the same time, and in doing so we will construct a much better form of economic activity and growth in terms of clean air, less-congested cities and so on. If we say the only way to handle this is to stop growing, we will be factually wrong, because if we stopped growing but didn’t break the relationship between activity and emissions, we wouldn’t be tackling climate change.”

And if there was one big quibble I'd have, it would be that I would disagree with the "break the relationship between activity and emissions" phrase and with this quote

"There are only three ways of reducing our carbon footprint: reduce the amount each person consumes, reduce the number of people, or make each unit of growth less carbon-intensive."

There is at least one more way of reducing our carbon footprint -- by finding other ways to prevent the climate from changing. And we could question the necessity of reducing our footprint, we could learn to live with the amount of carbon we emit by adapting to the new conditions.

87margd
Avr 11, 2015, 10:43 am

>85 John5918: Forget Dams: Let's Store Extra Energy in Rocks on Trains and Underwater Balloons

Many of these techniques if done cheaply without regard to environment--as we in west too often proceed--have real downsides... For example, pumped hydro storage can entrain and kill huge numbers of fish if an open loop with lake (Ludington, MI); closed loops are more expensive to build and operate. The folks testing salvage balloons in Lake Ontario off Toronto are encountering difficulties, plus I'm pretty sure that balloons are reamed into spawning reefs, albeit ones long denuded of rocks for cobble and ballast.

Maybe something like Tesla home battery will be the answer--for homes with photovoltaic panels off the grid, but also for those of us on the grid who are being charged extra* by electric companies losing business, and wishing to maintain outdated infrastructure. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/21/tesla-home-battery-way/

* I feel for not-wealthy Ypsilanti, MI, which invested in converting to LED streetlights only to see expected savings vanish when Detroit Edison hiked electricity for cities attempting to conserve this way.

88margd
Avr 14, 2015, 12:15 pm

Climate Explorations:
WHY WE DON'T BELIEVE SCIENCE: A PERSPECTIVE FROM DECISION PSYCHOLOGY (webinar)
Dr. Ellen Peters, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University
APRIL 14, 2015 | 3:30 p.m. EST

Free, live (1h?) webinar today at
http://bpcrc.osu.edu/events/why-we-dont-believe-science-perspective-decision-psy...,
but these are usually posted online for later viewing.

90southernbooklady
Avr 28, 2015, 8:54 am

>89 John5918: from that article: "The Encyclical is expected to describe action to cut emissions as "a moral and religious imperative, highlighting the intrinsic connection between respect for the environment and respect for people - especially the poor, children, and future generations".

Is there such a thing as a theology of the environment? Or even a Catholic theology of the environment? Can environmental conservation really be described as "a moral and religious imperative"?

91hf22
Modifié : Avr 28, 2015, 9:31 am

>90 southernbooklady:

Yes, there is such a theology, even putting aside the implications for the poor (which create their own moral and religious imperatives).

It basically starts with Scripture, and the injunction in the second creation account of the Book of Genesis, where humankind is placed in the Garden by the Creator to “till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15).

So humanity is considered steward of God's creation, which God has entrusted to humanity. And thus environmental conservation can be considered one of the main responsibilities given by God to humanity (together with our responsibilities to God and to the rest of humanity).

A kind of preview of the Encyclical, by an African Bishop who was responsible for some of the drafting, can be found here (http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2015/03/05/cardinal-peter-turkson-delivers-trocaire-2015-lenten-lecture-saint-patricks-pontifical-university-maynooth/).

And a couple of slightly older links which explain some of the roots of this idea, outside of the immediate context of the current Pope's Encyclical (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html and https://www.sydneycatholic.org/news/features/2010/2010319_1468.shtml).

92John5918
Avr 28, 2015, 10:29 am

>90 southernbooklady: Is there such a thing as a theology of the environment?

Often referred to as "Creation Spirituality", or linked to justice and peace in the phrase "Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation". It's one of the components of Catholic Social Thought.

I specialised in Creation Spirituality when I did my MA in Spirituality, but that's more than 20 years ago now, so I expect it has moved on a bit. I still try to keep up to date and look forward to the encyclical.

the intrinsic connection between respect for the environment and respect for people - especially the poor, children, and future generations

A key facet of Catholic thought on the matter is that respect for the environment is not set against respect for humanity, but that they are intrinsically connected.

93southernbooklady
Avr 28, 2015, 10:41 am

>92 John5918: A key facet of Catholic thought on the matter is that respect for the environment is not set against respect for humanity, but that they are intrinsically connected.


It's a nice thought. I suppose my usual reservations about theological environmentalism is that the language is usually one of "stewardship," rather than "participation." The goals of the former aren't always in sync with latter.

94John5918
Modifié : Avr 28, 2015, 11:28 am

>93 southernbooklady: Some authors would emphasise participation, including my own favourite, Thomas Berry, but you're right that the dominant paradigm is probably stewardship.

The concept of stewardship is also open to a spectrum of interpretations. Some might equate it with dominance, whereas others would see it as more of a nurturing role. Even someone like Berry would argue that we are the species which has consciousness and opposable thumbs (and the industrial and technical revolutions) so we are in a position to consciously and explicitly be stewards of creation in a way which (so far) no other species can. That role comes with a lot of responsibility.

95southernbooklady
Avr 28, 2015, 11:44 am

>94 John5918: so we are in a position to consciously and explicitly be stewards of creation in a way which (so far) no other species can.

or more to the point, no other species needs to be.

That role comes with a lot of responsibility.

If only it were paired with an equal amount of humility.

I think the only Thomas Berry I've read is Dream of the Earth. That was awhile ago, though. I'll have to revisit him.

96John5918
Avr 28, 2015, 12:44 pm

>95 southernbooklady: If only it were paired with an equal amount of humility

Absolutely.

97nathanielcampbell
Modifié : Avr 28, 2015, 8:11 pm

>93 southernbooklady: "the language is usually one of "stewardship," rather than "participation."

Ironically, the language of "stewardship" is really a modern approach to a theology of creation. Premodern approaches did, in fact, emphasize the notion of participation, through the concept of the human as a microcosm of the macrocosmos -- because of the Incarnation, the God-made-human, the human spans every level of the chain of being that emanates from the One down to lowest atom, thus containing within themselves (and thus responsive to, participatory in) all other levels of created being.

All of creation, as created being, "participates" (insofar as it exists contingently) in the Creator's noncontingent being; but humankind has the peculiar place of participating at all levels, from the lowest and inert bit of matter to the Godhead itself.

In the first book of her Book of Divine Works, for example, Hildegard of Bingen envisions this enmeshing of the human within a complex, vibrant, teeming web of cosmic forces (fires and winds, waters and earth). At the physical level, her visions read almost deterministically, with the human pushed and pulled inexorably by these cosmic forces, almost trapped within their influences upon the body. Once she delves into allegorical interpretation, however, the human freedom to respond to creation comes to the fore; the key to the exercise of virtue (and thus holiness) is in acting in balance with those forces, rather than in imbalance (there's humoral theory at work here).

98southernbooklady
Avr 28, 2015, 8:38 pm

>97 nathanielcampbell: Ironically, the language of "stewardship" is really a modern approach to a theology of creation.

I expect stewardship takes on a wider meaning as our ability to manipulate the environment occurs on a greater and greater scale. It's one thing to talk about "tending the garden" when no one has a very large garden. It's another thing when you are making changes to an ecosystem on a broad, even global scale.

99rrp
Modifié : Avr 29, 2015, 8:31 pm

>89 John5918:

"Vatican urges poor to save the planet by not to getting rich; proposes no other solution to combat climate change".

100John5918
Modifié : Mai 1, 2015, 3:24 am

Vatican, U.N. join forces against climate change (USA Today)

Top officials from the Vatican, the head of the United Nations and leading scientists came together at a summit Tuesday in Vatican City to label the fight against man-made climate change as a "moral issue."..

"It is a moral issue. It is an issue of social justice, human rights and fundamental ethics..."


Church of England ends investments in heavily polluting fossil fuels (Guardian)

101rrp
Mai 2, 2015, 8:10 pm

"COULD Pope Francis become the world's foremost campaigner on global warming? That is certainly the fondest hope (or in a few cases the darkest fear) of a lot of people who are closely involved in deliberations over the planet's future."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/04/pope-and-climate-change

102madpoet
Mai 2, 2015, 10:46 pm

I wish people on both sides of this 'debate' would stop making it a political/moral issue. Let's look at the evidence, and decide from there.

From what I see, the evidence is that climate change is happening, more in some places (such as the Arctic, where it is happening very fast) and less in other places. It is definitely man-made, and rapid, and scary. Scientists generally understand what is causing it, but can't predict how it will happen (they've had to revise their models repeatedly already). They are afraid to admit to any uncertainty, however, because that will be pounced on by climate-change deniers. As always when science is 'popularized' it is generally wildly misrepresented in the media. For example: a warmer world does not mean a drier world. It means, generally, a more humid, wetter world. The wettest regions on Earth are along the equator, while the Arctic and Antarctic are deserts. Of course, some areas will be drier, as deserts shift. Polar bears are doing just fine, by the way, despite the rapidly warming Arctic Ocean. Sea levels are rising- but not evenly. As glaciers disappear in Alaska and other northern areas, the land is actually rising (without the weight of the ice to hold it down).

To sum up (as I see it): Yes, climate change is happening. Yes, it is man-made. But everything else you think you know about climate change (if you get it from the popular media) has as much relation to reality as the Da Vinci Code.

103John5918
Mai 3, 2015, 7:06 am

>102 madpoet: Yes, climate change is happening. Yes, it is man-made

But doesn't that make it a moral issue?

I would add that I agree with you completely on popular misunderstandings.

104rrp
Mai 3, 2015, 10:55 am

>102 madpoet:

Also, don't forget that climate scientists also don't know much about the climate -- in the sense that the predictions from their models have a wide range of disagreement.

And the most important question that is rarely addressed, by the Pope among others (hopefully soon to be corrected), is

"WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?"

Now, I assume you have take all the sensible steps to do what you can -- move to a big city, use public transport, eat GMO vegetarian food from large factor farms, paint you roof white, etc.

But your contribution will only get us so far (well is actually less than a drop in the ocean to be fair). You need to persuade the rest of us to follow. And that is a political issue in which framing the response a as moral issue may be a good rhetorical strategy.

105madpoet
Modifié : Mai 3, 2015, 8:54 pm

Making a scientific issue into a political or moral issue is problematic, since any questioning of the science (and without questioning it isn't science, it's dogma) becomes immoral. The response to the problem has to be political, of course, but the problem itself is not. In other words, those who study the issue should not be concerned about whether their findings help one political party or another.

What can we do about it? That is the question. Obviously, as rrp says, it is not a problem that can be solved by individuals acting alone. Some 'solutions' make the problem worse, if they are not part of a bigger solution. Example: electric cars, where the electricity is generated by burning coal!

By the way, one thing we can do individually to help the environment is stop using single-cup coffee pods (we call them "K-cups" in Canada). Those things are the worst products, environmentally, since the invention of plastic water bottles.

106John5918
Mai 3, 2015, 12:59 pm

>105 madpoet: But surely anything that is "man-made" raises moral questions as to whether humans should indeed make it, and how they should handle it, and other moral questions. Humans made the drugs for lethal injections; is it moral to use them as such? (Many Europeans apparently think not). Humans made nuclear weapons; is it moral to use them? Humans have stem cells, cloning, genetic modification and a whole host of other things which raise questions about morality for many people. Why should climate change be a human-made issue which is not subject to moral questions?

107southernbooklady
Mai 3, 2015, 1:10 pm

>106 John5918: But surely anything that is "man-made" raises moral questions as to whether humans should indeed make it, and how they should handle it, and other moral questions

There is probably a distinction in here somewhere between "moral" and "ethical" -- I agree with madpoet that the science should be pursued as objectively as possible. There is nothing inherently "moral" about determining how fast polar ice is melting. And moral considerations shouldn't come into any determination of how fast it is melting. Otherwise you're stuck with proclaiming a scientific finding as "moral" or "immoral" -- which is a problem since scientific knowledge changes all the time. The Catholic Church learned its lesson with Galileo.

But wherever scientific research has implications for our real-world way of life, then ethical considerations do come into play. One might say, for example, that it is unethical to use out dated research, or to dismiss/ignore/hide evidence that does not conform to your particular view. So it is unethical for a developer to build a house in a flood zone, and then sell it to someone using outdated research that says the house won't flood, rather than the new scientific evidence that says it will.

108rrp
Modifié : Mai 3, 2015, 3:23 pm

>107 southernbooklady:

There is nothing inherently "moral" about determining how fast polar ice is melting.

Except, that in most cases, the scientific research on climate change is paid for using tax payers' money. And those who choose to spend tax payers' money are morally obligated, if not legally obligated, to spend that money in a responsible way while taking into account the views and values of those tax payers who provided the money.

For example, when they are choosing where to allocate their overall budgets, governments must choose between spending money on scientific research and relief for the poor (in their own country or internationally). Of the money they have chosen to spend on scientific research, they must choose between research on climate change and research on curing disease. All of those issues are both moral and political.

You may wish you can take moral and political questions out of science, but unless you are spending your own money (like Bill Gates for example), that is just a pipe dream. And even Bill Gates takes moral and political issues into account when he makes decisions on where to spend his foundation's money.

And then the individual scientist, who receives money from the government to do climate change research, is morally, and probably contractually, obliged to spend it in a responsible way. We can hope that he or she is dispassionate about the results, but even scientists are human and have their biases and limitations. The history of the climate change research shows that the scientists are not as dispassionate as we would hope.

109southernbooklady
Mai 3, 2015, 3:31 pm

>108 rrp: You may wish you can take moral and political questions out of science, but unless you are spending your own money (like Bill Gates for example), that is just a pipe dream.

"It's not immoral if you pay for it yourself" does not strike me as a tenable ethical system.

110rrp
Mai 3, 2015, 5:24 pm

>109 southernbooklady:

Clearly, if you are spending someone else's money to do science, you have a moral obligation to them, and your science would thus have a moral dimension. I would say that if you are spending your own money and time, you also have an obligation to act morally. Thus science always has a moral dimension -- which I think was the point being discussed.

However, I would assume under a system of moral relativity, such as that you believe in, if you make the decision to "pay for it yourself", it would be by definition "ethical". Unless, that is, you deliberately "choose" to do the "wrong" thing, which seems to me illogical.

111John5918
Mai 3, 2015, 11:54 pm

>107 southernbooklady: Thanks for the clarification, and I confess I often do not see a big difference between ethics and morality. I agree that scientific discovery is independent of morality, but I am picking up on the "man-made". If human beings make something (or cause something) then there are moral/ethical questions around it.

112rrp
Mai 4, 2015, 6:00 pm

I think there is a real distinction here. I think we all agree that, when doing research, a scientist should strive to be a objective as possible. That, as has been demonstrated many times, is a very hard thing to do.

A simple example is a medical research program, a randomized trial of a certain drug. If it is quickly apparent that the drug is effective, then is it ethical to withhold that drug treatment from the control group, who might die without treatment, but will probably not die with treatment? The objective thing to do is to carry on with the trial and not change the protocol (and there are many who would argue that is the right thing to do, in the name of science). The moral thing to do might be to give the control group the drug. Whatever the researchers decide to do, they are making an ethical decision. You can never divorce moral/ethical questions from the pursuit of science.

But perhaps the nuance meant is that the result of science should be morally/ethically neutral. That the result should be a plain fact. That while "determining how fast polar ice is melting" has an ethical dimension, "how fast polar ice is melting" does not (note the determining "determining".)

However data, such as "how fast polar ice is melting" are not plain facts. How, where and when the facts are selected, interpreted, packaged, explained and presented is part of the process of science and so again comes under the domain of ethics.

So, which ever way you look at it, you can never divorce moral and ethical questions from science. And that's probably a Good Thing.



113madpoet
Mai 6, 2015, 1:51 pm

>112 rrp: There are different kinds of science. Climatologists do not create anything, and they do not experiment on human or animal subjects, so they do not face as many ethical questions as nuclear physicists or biologists. It's not like the discoveries of climatology can be weaponized. Really, the only ethical duty they have is to be honest, unbiased, and neither to hide nor exaggerate their findings. But if they are afraid to release findings because the facts are not "politically acceptable"... that is a problem.

What we have seen with the 'news' about polar bears is a good example of the dangers of politicizing science. According to some sources, their numbers are declining, while other sources say they are increasing. Which studies are cited in which media depends entirely on the editors' bias. The topic has become so politicized that you really cannot trust media on either side to be honest, and it appears that even respectable news sources are willing to hide inconvenient facts and distort the truth to fit their narrative.

114margd
Modifié : Mai 6, 2015, 6:35 pm

Who’s Afraid of Pope Francis?
Garry Wills

...Those who profit from what harms the earth have to keep the poor out of sight. They have trouble enough fighting off the scientific, economic, and political arguments against bastioned privilege. Bringing basic morality to the fore could be fatal to them. That is why they are mounting such a public pre-emptive strike against the encyclical before it even appears. They must not only discredit the pope’s words (whatever they turn out to be), they must block them, ridicule them, destroy them....The real issue here is not science vs. ignorance, or the UN vs. xenophobia, or my 97 percent of experts against your 3 percent. It is a case of the immensely rich few against the many deprived poor. The few are getting much of their wealth from interlocking interests that despoil the earth. The fact that the poor get poorer in this process is easily dismissed, denied, or derided. The poor have no voice. Till now. If the pope were not a plausible voice for the poor, his opponents would not be running so scared. Their fear is a testimony to him.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/apr/30/whos-afraid-pope-francis/

********************************************************

With Pope Francis’s Encyclical on Climate Change Done, Now a Vatican Sales Push – and Pushback
By Andrew C. Revkin
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/spin-substance-and-pope-franciss-en...

...Here’s the opening section (from the final draft):

Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience. Widening inequalities of wealth and income, the world-wide disruption of the physical climate system and the loss of millions of species that sustain life are the grossest manifestations of unsustainability. The continued extraction of coal, oil and gas following the “business-as-usual mode” will soon create grave existential risks for the poorest three billion, and for generations yet unborn. Climate change resulting largely from unsustainable consumption by about 15% of the world’s population has become a dominant moral and ethical issue for society. There is still time to mitigate unmanageable climate changes and repair ecosystem damages, provided we reorient our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves.
Climate change is a global problem whose solution will depend on our stepping beyond national affiliations and coming together for the common good. Such transformational changes in attitudes would help foster the necessary institutional reforms and technological innovations for providing the energy sources that have negligible effect on global climate, atmospheric pollution and eco-systems, thus protecting generations yet to be born. Religious institutions can and should take the lead in bringing about that change in attitude towards Creation.

The Catholic Church, working with the leadership of other religions, can now take a decisive role by mobilizing public opinion and public funds to meet the energy needs of the poorest 3 billion people, thus allowing them to prepare for the challenges of unavoidable climate and eco-system changes. Such a bold and humanitarian action by the world’s religions acting in unison is certain to catalyze a public debate over how we can integrate societal choices, as prioritized under UN’s sustainable development goals, into sustainable economic development pathways for the 21st century, with projected population of 10 billion or more.

115rrp
Mai 9, 2015, 5:06 pm

>113 madpoet:

You may be confusing scientists and engineers. All scientists only create informations; engineers create things. Climatologists do indeed have an ethical duty to be "be honest, unbiased, and neither to hide nor exaggerate their findings", but so do all scientists. But like other scientists their ethical duty extends beyond that. The information they generate is nuanced and incomplete and it is their duty not to over emphasize their certainty. They have a duty to adopt a politically neutral stance when communicating their results. While most strive to do that, some have have not. Some have a history of calling their "opponent's" criticisms "fraud" or "pure crap" or threatening to “beat the crap out of" them.

116rrp
Mai 9, 2015, 5:16 pm

>114 margd:

Thanks for the links. The NYT piece was updated when the final declaration came out ...

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/a-vatican-declaration-seeks-equitab...

What struck me was that the sentiments are fine, "They affirm the beauty, wonder, and inherent goodness of the natural world, and appreciate that it is a precious gift entrusted to our common care, making it our moral duty to respect rather than ravage the garden that is our home." But there is very little substance in ideas of to solve the problems (that's someone else's job apparently).

To quote from that article.

"It’s important to note subtle, but significant, wording here, in particular the phrase "and other low-carbon energy" — code for both nuclear power and for "carbon capture" methods of using fossil fuels that capture and sequester carbon dioxide (which will need an awful lot of large-scale development before they can be seen as a climate-scale option)."

And no mention of a carbon tax.

The Church should be primarily concerned for the people and, perhaps, particularly for the poor. And, as has been noted many times, most climate change mitigation strategies will hurt the poor. For a take on how to help the poor from a different direction see http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/electricity-for-africa.aspx.

117margd
Juin 7, 2015, 4:21 pm

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change.

Santorum, a devout Catholic, told Philadelphia radio host Dom Giordano on Monday that the pope should "leave science to the scientists."

His comments come as the pope, who holds a degree as a chemical technician and worked as a chemist before turning to the priesthood, becomes increasingly vocal about climate change. Pope Francis is preparing a groundbreaking encyclical to be released in the coming weeks that's expected to make the case that taking action to fight climate change is a moral and religious imperative...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/rick-santorum-pope-climat_n_7498768.htm...

118John5918
Juin 8, 2015, 12:57 am

>117 margd: "leave science to the scientists."

Funnily enough what the pope is saying is basically what, er, "the scientists" are saying.

119John5918
Juin 9, 2015, 1:04 am

Why 2015 could be the year that really changes the climate debate (Washington Post)

By all accounts, in coming weeks the equivalent of a moral earthquake will occur, as the pontiff unleashes a historic papal encyclical on the environment... It has already ruffled Catholic Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum...

U.S. Catholics in particular seem to be right in the middle on the climate issue. They’re not highly skeptical, as are members of some conservative Protestant groups, but they’re not exactly bullish, either. In sum, they’re a gigantic bloc that really could move...

121margd
Juin 14, 2015, 9:59 am

Francis encyclical on the environment comes out Thursday (June 19):

Pope Francis May Find Wariness Among U.S. Bishops on Climate Change

ST. LOUIS — The church bulletin inserts are nearly ready to go. So are the emails to every Roman Catholic parish in the United States with preaching suggestions for the first Sunday after Pope Francis releases his encyclical on the environment.

A week after that, on June 28, churches worldwide are being asked to ring their bells at noon to commemorate a “Thank you, Pope Francis” march in Rome being held that day.

Never before, church leaders say, has a papal encyclical been anticipated so eagerly by so many. With Francis expected to make the case that climate change, unchecked development and overconsumption are exacerbating the suffering of the poor, advocates for the environment and the poor are thrilled.

But the leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States may be harder to win over. At the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops here last week, bishops from around the country said they were withholding their enthusiasm until they saw the document on Thursday...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/pope-francis-may-find-wariness-among-us-bis...

122hf22
Juin 14, 2015, 10:58 pm

>121 margd:

A week after that, on June 28, churches worldwide are being asked to ring their bells at noon to commemorate a “Thank you, Pope Francis” march in Rome being held that day.

Ah, do we know WHO is asking Churches to ring their bells to commemorate a “Thank you, Pope Francis” march? Because I can't imagine Pope Francis being pleased at such a thing.

123hf22
Juin 14, 2015, 11:59 pm

>122 hf22:

Never mind, I see that it is the "Global Catholic Climate Movement" (http://catholicclimatemovement.global), rather than an official Church request.

124John5918
Juin 15, 2015, 12:12 am

Franciscan: Encyclical title affirms all creatures have common creator (CNS)

“Laudato Si’,” the title Pope Francis chose for his encyclical on the environment, comes from a hymn of praise by St. Francis of Assisi that emphasizes being in harmony with God, with other creatures and with other human beings, said the head of the Franciscan order...

125hf22
Modifié : Juin 15, 2015, 10:11 pm

Pope Francis blasts global warming deniers in leaked draft of encyclical (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/an-italian-draft-of-pope-francis-environmental-paper-leaks--setting-off-scurry-to-google-translate/2015/06/15/89af0012-1379-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html?hpid=z2).

Note - The leaked version is in Italian. The official release, with an English version, will be Thursday.

126John5918
Juin 16, 2015, 3:07 am

>118 John5918: BBC World Service was highlighting this morning that on this occasion it is the Catholic Church which is supporting the scientific community, something they found interesting.

127hf22
Juin 16, 2015, 3:40 am

>10 hf22:

When you read the upcoming encyclical from the Pope, which has already been previewed, you will find it will not make the mistake of trying to turn the mainstream science into a theological truth. That was the mistake the Church made with Galileo after all.It will assume the science, as the Church as no special competence from which to dispute it, and apply CST on the basis of that assumption.

And just to test my prediction, we read at paragraph 188 of the leaked text (via Google Translate):

There are discussions on issues relating to the environment in which it is difficult to reach a consensus. Once again I repeat that the Church does not claim to define the scientific, nor a substitute for policy, but a call to honest and transparent debate, because the special needs or ideologies do not adversely affect the common good.

That is, while the encyclical assumes the science and strongly applies CST based on its conclusions, it does not make the mistake of pretending the Church can decide scientific questions (i.e. by trying to turn them into theological truth).

128John5918
Juin 16, 2015, 3:49 am

>127 hf22: Absolutely. That's probably why BBC found it interesting, namely that the Church is basing its assumptions on the mainstream science unlike the mistake it made in the case of Galileo, which the BBC also mentioned.

129hf22
Juin 16, 2015, 4:08 am

>128 John5918:

While the Galileo case was complex, as I noted at >14 hf22:, part of the Church's problem was precisely basing its assumptions on the mainstream science (i.e. his disagreement was partly with mainstream scientific opinion at the time, whose side the Church took).

The improvement from that time is therefore not in "basing its assumptions on the mainstream science", but in being clear those assumptions are not theological truths (just revisable scientific theories).

130John5918
Modifié : Juin 16, 2015, 4:22 am

>129 hf22: Fair enough.

Edited to add: Although one could argue that Galileo was at the cutting edge of a new emerging mainstream in scientific thought, just as climate change theories are also emerging as the new mainstream. But it's not really a point worth arguing.

131hf22
Juin 16, 2015, 4:52 am

>130 John5918:

Climate change has been the mainstream consensus for 25 years or more, back to first big global summit which was held in the early 1990s.

Galileo was more like the current minority positions, except he ended up being right.

132John5918
Modifié : Juin 16, 2015, 5:04 am

>131 hf22: Well, yes and no. Galileo's was a minority position which eventually emerged as the new mainstream, superseding the old mainstream. Climate change has only recently emerged as the mainstream theory (25 years is "recent" in the great scheme of things) and the minority now are reactionaries trying to bolster the old mentality, not like Galileo at all.

But this is a red herring really. The point is that the Church is basing its assumptions on the emerging mainstream and, while not declaring them to be theological truths, is interrogating them in the light of Catholic Social Thought. And, as one of the above articles suggests, it's very important that a major church is doing so in a climate (no pun intended; well, alright, maybe a pun was intended) where many Christians are siding with the old mentality and often basing that on theological truth.

133pmackey
Juin 16, 2015, 5:51 am

I don't get the Christian objection to "climate change". Whether change is coming fast, slow, or not at all, it makes logical sense for humans to take care of their habitat. It makes theological sense as well because humans through Adam and Eve were given stewardship of the earth.

Just because Jesus will create all things new in the 2nd Advent is no reason to treat our current home like crap.

134hf22
Juin 16, 2015, 6:28 am

>132 John5918:

Climate change has only recently emerged as the mainstream theory (25 years is "recent" in the great scheme of things)

Not recent in the scheme of human caused climate change, which itself is relatively recent, and even more so given the necessary time to identify that the climate was changing unusually at all.

the minority now are reactionaries trying to bolster the old mentality, not like Galileo at all.

What "old mentality"? The theories advanced by the few scientists who still disagree with the consensus hold to theories no older than the consensus.

Even the political opponents are not trying to protect an old mentality, as capitalism is the mechanism mostly being used to combat climate change (i.e. emission trading schemes etc), so much as old assets.

The point is that the Church is basing its assumptions on the emerging mainstream

It is not basing its assumption on an emerging mainstream, but on a well established one. Indeed, if it were indeed still emerging, it could not base its assumptions on it because that would indicate it remained too scientifically contestable.

It is precisely the established nature of the consensus which allows, and indeed requires, the Church in its prudence to follow it.

135John5918
Juin 16, 2015, 6:38 am

>134 hf22: Ah well, we disagree again.

136hf22
Juin 16, 2015, 6:56 am

>135 John5918:

Ah well, you have put a another untenable view, for which you can not find any reasonable arguments to support. God forbid you could just acknowledge the fact.

Go read the encyclical. From what I can gather so far it precisely makes the point that the science is settled, and not emerging, and thus it must be followed.

137John5918
Juin 16, 2015, 7:27 am

>136 hf22: you have put a another untenable view, for which you can not find any reasonable arguments to support. God forbid you could just acknowledge the fact.

No, I'm simply viewing it from a different perspective than you, through a different lens, based on a different life experience and worldview. Could you not acknowledge that fact occasionally?

And I'm not saying you are definitively wrong (or untenable). See my >132 John5918:, "Well, yes and no". We could both be right, you know, coming from our different perspectives. There are win-win situations.

Go read the encyclical

I can't. I believe it won't be published until Thursday. I don't see any point in reading a leaked draft which may or may not be accurate when the real thing will be available in two more days. I'll read it then, as I read all new encyclicals. Well, I might not read it until Friday as on Thursday I shall probably be out of internet contact while giving input to a workshop on peace-building in a remote town, and then coming back to Juba in a small aircraft.

138margd
Juin 16, 2015, 7:58 am

Can this be the first time since Galileo that Church has waded so deeply into scientific waters, I wonder?

(My takeaways from long ago read of The Crime of Galileo was that the Church didn't go after Copernicus for his theory, but Galileo, who was providing proofs with his telescope, and that Galileo had his detractors and supporters in surprising places, e.g., (German?) Protestant scientists (detractors) and Jesuits (supporters). )

139John5918
Juin 17, 2015, 1:15 am

The Pope can see what many atheist greens will not

Interesting to see an article like this in the Grauniad.

140John5918
Juin 17, 2015, 4:38 am

141hf22
Juin 17, 2015, 8:33 am

>137 John5918:

We could both be right, you know, coming from our different perspectives. There are win-win situations.

But you are not right. You are wrong, and are just seeking excuses to avoid the fact. The climate change consensus is not an "emerging" scientific mainstream, it has long since emerged and has been established for decades.

That is the facts, and no lens, life experience or worldview can change it.

142margd
Juin 17, 2015, 9:04 am

While I wish climate-deniers would reconsider their assessments, it's a little strange post-JFK to assume that politicians would take marching orders from Pope.

Also, it's interesting that Pope and climate-denying politicians themselves seem to have left no room to change positions without being labeled flip-floppers or Vatican toadies. In current US political climate, there's no reward in admitting, "I never thought of it that way. I think you're right. Thank you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/politics/popes-views-press-gop-on-climate-c...

143margd
Juin 18, 2015, 8:13 am

Patriarch Bartholomew on Francis's encyclical:
http://time.com/3926076/pope-francis-encyclical-patriarch-bartholomew/

144John5918
Juin 18, 2015, 10:29 am

There is no conflict between our faiths and the science of climate change (Guardian)

The Pope’s encyclical asks everyone to be good stewards of the earth. As representatives of the three Abrahamic faiths, we stand together with him - Cardinal John Onaiyekan, Rabbi David Rosen and Professor Dr M Din Syamsuddin

145hf22
Modifié : Juin 19, 2015, 12:37 am

The Return of Catholic Anti-Modernism (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-return-of-catholic-anti-modernism) over at First Things by R. R. Reno

In this encyclical, Francis expresses strikingly anti-scientific, anti-technological, and anti-progressive sentiments. In fact, this is perhaps the most anti-modern encyclical since the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX’s haughty 1864 dismissal of the conceits of the modern era.

One of the things which has struck me about Laudato Si is just how reactionary it is, in the classic and best traditions of that concept# (i.e. I am not saying that as a bad thing).

Indeed its reactionary nature reminds me of Lord of the World, a book I recently read on Pope Francis’ recommendation. At the time of reading Lord of the World I did not really understand its attraction to Pope Francis, as it is a rather more easy to identify expression of the reactionary impulse, but on reading Laudato Si it has become clearer.

The Pope does not seem in my view to share the progressive understanding, exhibited by those celebrating for example gay marriage or even Gaudium et Spes, that modernity is moving towards the building of a better and more moral world (i.e. in Christian terms to the building of a new Jerusalem, as William Blake or Clement Attlee might have said).

He rather seems to share more of Tolkien’s idea of history being a “long defeat”, until the final victory in the end times (being in itself a very anti-modern idea shared also by Robert Benson).

# The modern Green movement does not lack for a reactionary impulse itself, though it is somewhat different to the Popes.

146John5918
Juin 19, 2015, 12:38 am

Top Ten Takeaways from 'Laudato Si'' (America)

To use religious language, what the pope is calling for is conversion

147John5918
Modifié : Juin 19, 2015, 10:02 am

I've now read the whole of Laudato Si'. It was a joy to read.

I'm not sure I would call it "reactionary", although I take hf22's point that he doesn't mean it in a negative way. I think Francis defies (dare I say transcends?) these partisan labels. It has long been acknowledged that he is theologically "conservative" but pastorally more open and pragmatic, and I don't find it surprising that he mines the Catholic Tradition for this encyclical. I suspect that the late Thomas Berry, definitely a "progressive", would have found much to approve of in Francis' words.

Neither do I think that it flies in the face of Gaudium et Spes (nor, indeed, that Gaudium et Spes asserts "that modernity is moving towards the building of a better and more moral world"). I think it is very much in the spirit of Gaudium et Spes, scrutinising the signs of the times and interrogating them in the light of Scripture and Tradition.

One general comment is that I think this is the first encyclical I have seen that makes so many references to the teachings of different episcopal conferences on so many continents - at first glance I see South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Japan, Paraguay, New Zealand, Portugal, Bolivia, Australia. Collegiality in action?

A few random things which struck me; by no means a comprehensive view.

#11: St Francis' "response to the world around him was so much more than intellectual appreciation or economic calculus".

#93ff: A timely reminder of the Church's teaching on the priority of the common good over private property, reprised again in #156ff.

#98: Nice to see an admission that the Church was tainted by dualism: "Such unhealthy dualisms, nonetheless, left a mark on certain Christian thinkers in the course of history and disfigured the Gospel."

#102: Can't resist noting that the pope speaks positively of steam engines and railways!

#103: But also of bridges; here is where Berry might disagree with him a bit. Berry was keen on each bioregion being as self-sustainable as possible, with as little long-distance trade as possible. I don't have the exact quote to hand, but when asked what would be the single biggest contribution to ecology, he once replied, "Blow up all the bridges!"

#106ff: Good stuff on globalisation.

#118: "There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology..." but a "misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to 'biocentrism', for that would entail adding yet another imbalance".

#119: "we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships".

#162: "Men and women of our postmodern world run the risk of rampant individualism", something which seems very obvious to those who live in more traditional communal cultures.

#194: "For new models of progress to arise, there is a need to change 'models of global development'”. I've participated in many conversations on LT where it is assumed that the "developing world" will automatically develop along the same lines as the "developed world". I have always challenged that notion, as apparently does Francis. This also reminds me of #143ff where Francis affirms the value of different cultures, again in opposition to the view held by many in the west that other cultures are somehow second class and their ultimate destiny is to become like westerners.

#199ff: Religions in dialogue with science.

#231: Civic and political love - this struck me because our South Sudanese Church leaders recently issued a statement which was quite challenging to our political leaders but which, influenced by our recent visit to Rwanda, stressed that this was being said out of love, not out of anger.

#238: A nice reflection on the Trinity as relationship.

These are just a few personal reflections. I also like the summary from 'America' (>146 John5918:), and its conclusion, "what the pope is calling for is conversion".

148hf22
Modifié : Juin 20, 2015, 12:16 am

>147 John5918:

I've now read the whole of Laudato Si. It was a joy to read.

Going to drop that "emerging" scientific consensus stuff now?

I'm not sure I would call it "reactionary", although I take hf22's point that he doesn't mean it in a negative way. I think Francis defies (dare I say transcends?) these partisan labels.

As praise, more like!

But being "reactionary" DOES transcend partisan labels. As I noted, the self-identified green left does not lack for Arcadian reaction. Your own economic views, while certainly left wing, could similarly be classified as "reactionary" in many ways (the status quo ante bellum being the pre-Thatcher settlement).

It has long been acknowledged that he is theologically "conservative" but pastorally more open and pragmatic, and I don't find it surprising that he mines the Catholic Tradition for this encyclical.

While the theology of Laudato Si is indeed particularly theologically "conservative", and very well based in Scripture and Tradition, that is not what I mean by "reactionary".

Neither do I think that it flies in the face of Gaudium et Spes (nor, indeed, that Gaudium et Spes asserts "that modernity is moving towards the building of a better and more moral world"). I think it is very much in the spirit of Gaudium et Spes, scrutinising the signs of the times and interrogating them in the light of Scripture and Tradition.

It is in the tradition of Gaudium et Spes in terms of "scrutinising the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel". It even gets the order the right way around, unlike Catholic progressives, as seen for example in the rather gratuitous denunciation of transsexual ideology it includes (at 155).

But it strikingly differs in the attitude it brings to the signs of the times. Gaudium et Spes is optimistic and even laudatory of the signs of its times (i.e. world-affirming), whereas Laudato Si is more classically reactionary. A comparison of how technology is discussed in both documents will show you what I mean.

In other words, Gaudium et Spes looked upon the works and potential works of man, and declares they have improved the world in many ways. Laudato Si looks upon many of those same works and potentials, and declares they have harmed the world in many ways. The better world of Gaudium et Spes lies in a future yet unimagined, the better world of Laudato Si lies in an imagined past#.

# ETA: Much like that represented by the Scouring Of The Shire and related themes in the Lord of the Rings.

149John5918
Modifié : Juin 20, 2015, 1:33 am

>148 hf22: In other words, Gaudium et Spes looked upon the works and potential works of man, and declares they have improved the world in many ways. Laudato Si looks upon many of those same works and potentials, and declares they have harmed the world in many ways.

Not quite. Laudato Si' also notes the good that has come from science and technology (eg #102). When Gaudium et Spes scrutinised the signs of the times in the 1960s they really had improved the world as far as most people were concerned and the harm they had done had not yet become apparent. By 2015, when Laudato Si' scrutinised the signs of a new time, the situation had changed and the harm is now apparent.

The better world of Gaudium et Spes lies in a future yet unimagined, the better world of Laudato Si' lies in an imagined past

No. I believe Laudato Si' is about the future, not the past. It is calling for conversion to create a new and different future, not simply a return to an imagined past.

150John5918
Juin 20, 2015, 1:51 am

Pope Francis is a bit like Naomi Klein in a cassock (Guardian)

It is nothing less than a call to refigure our entire political mindset... the Roman Catholic church is now the foremost critic of capitalism. As the left fades in authority all over the world, the church has regained its voice...

Bang on. Bravo. Thank God for Pope Francis.

151margd
Juin 20, 2015, 12:54 pm

LDS environmental stewardship statement, recent talk share similarities with Pope Francis' encyclical

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865631022/LDS-environmental-stewardship-state...

152John5918
Juin 21, 2015, 2:45 am

>151 margd: A converging conviction by people of all walks of life? A groundswell of popular as well as scientific opinion?

I was at a conference last week on South Sudan and Sudan and one of the speakers was a former UN official who was speaking about the dysfunctionality of the UN peace-keeping system, and indeed many of the other arms of the UN. However he held up the environment as perhaps the only area where the UN has performed well, largely due to the influence of civil society all over the world.

153hf22
Juin 21, 2015, 3:26 am

>149 John5918:

When Gaudium et Spes scrutinised the signs of the times in the 1960s they really had improved the world as far as most people were concerned and the harm they had done had not yet become apparent. By 2015, when Laudato Si' scrutinised the signs of a new time, the situation had changed and the harm is now apparent.

Clearly the facts have changed. But so has the attitude the Church has brought to those facts. There were plenty of things to be pessimistic about in the 1960s, and pre-Vatican II Popes had a pretty good line in being pessimistic about the world.

Now there is absolutely nothing illegitimate or wrong with having such a different attitude. But it is interesting to note the change, particularly as the more positive attitude of Vatican II towards the surrounding culture has so often been identified as one of its defining characteristics.

No. I believe Laudato Si' is about the future, not the past. It is calling for conversion to create a new and different future, not simply a return to an imagined past.

Well, I am not going to push the point, because this really is a matter of interpretation and characterisation rather than Holy Writ. But I would point to a number of sections of the document where the attitude I am referring to shows through, like paragraphs 6; 43-47; 105; 108; 114; 119; 123; 143 and 162.

154hf22
Juin 21, 2015, 3:30 am

The pope doesn’t like carbon credits, to economists’ chagrin (http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/06/18/the-pope-doesnt-like-carbon-credits-to-economists-chagrin/).

In particular, environmental economists criticized the encyclical’s condemnation of carbon trading, seeing it as part of a radical critique of market economies.

“I respect what the pope says about the need for action, but this is out of step with the thinking and the work of informed policy analysts around the world, who recognize that we can do more, faster, and better with the use of market-based policy instruments — carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade systems,” Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard, said in an email.

155margd
Modifié : Juin 21, 2015, 8:49 am

>152 John5918: I hope that Pope and other religious leaders' statements are indication that God will soon put a thumb on men's hearts, because from perspective of retiree from natural resources management, that's what it will take to curb our self-defeating ways.

156hf22
Modifié : Juin 21, 2015, 6:18 pm

'Care for Our Common Home': Taking Up the Moral Challenge of Pope Francis (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/06/19/4258547.htm):

Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si' could have been written by J.R.R. Tolkien. There are no Ents, but images of the Shire are evoked on every page. The first encyclical on the environment is not about climate change per se, but something more fundamental: "our common home." Largely the images are of a darkening world, Hobbiton under threat from Orc-like chimneys, but there are also images of the Shire as it was originally intended, as it once was, and as it could be again ...

There will be many who continue to think of Pope Francis as a progressive pope. But conservatives especially should be attracted to his argument that "our common home" is a pre-political common good on which we depend, and which should be con-served. In this way I think Pope Francis is closer to Tolkien, and to the British conservative and conservationist philosopher Roger Scruton, whose "Green Philosophy" gets very close to the way magisterial teaching on ecology and conservation has been moving. The pope's solutions are not about expanding government, but about expanding every human person, with a proper account of subsidiarity making the family the basic cell, the fundamental unit of creation care. The pope's vision is very much of the Shire. But what he is really calling us to become is saints!

157hf22
Modifié : Juin 22, 2015, 3:45 am

Pope Francis wants to roll back progress. Is the world ready? By Matthew Schmitz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/pope-francis-wants-to-roll-back-progress-is-the-world-ready/).

Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ encyclical letter on the environment, is the work of a profoundly pessimistic man. John Paul II may have spoken of the “culture of death” and Benedict XVI of the “dictatorship of relativism,” but not since the publication of the Syllabus of Errors in the nineteenth century has a leader of the Catholic church issued a document so imbued with foreboding. Critics will seize on his dark tone, but Francis’ letter offers a challenge worthy of serious consideration.

Also talks a bit about trains, Lord of the World and Pope Gregory XVI.

158John5918
Juin 22, 2015, 3:57 am

I think a lot of these reactions are very subjective. Is the glass half empty or half full? I choose to see it as a glass half full. As 'America' magazine says (>146 John5918:), "what the pope is calling for is conversion". That's an immensely positive dynamic.

159hf22
Juin 22, 2015, 4:24 am

There is a subjective side to these characterizations, but I think they touch on a reality even you have recognized. A call for conversion is of course precisely what Pius IX et al were offering at their most pessimistic.

A call for conversion is what the Church always offers when it is negative about how the world is traveling.

160John5918
Juin 22, 2015, 5:10 am

>159 hf22: Well, I would say that the call to conversion, metanoia, transformation is a constant and life-giving call, whether things are going well or not. It's not just something to do as a remedy for negativity.

161hf22
Juin 22, 2015, 5:29 am

Be that as it may, it is what the Church does when it does not like how the world is traveling. Thus it can't be used to indicate the Church is being world affirming. Indeed in recent times the term dialogue is used more than conversion when the Church wants to be world affirming, as it did say at the time of VII.

162hf22
Juin 23, 2015, 8:22 pm

>160 John5918:

An article from America which takes your point of view on the mood of Laudato Si (http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/mood-laudato-si-reply).

I think the author misses the history, both of Vatican II and the long 19th century, and thus misses the point being made (i.e. he sees a hidden political motive, whereas it is really picks up on the historical discussions around the change of attitude at Vatican II compared to the period prior to it).

Accordingly the argument he makes ends up being an ahistorical one, which supports the view that the Church is never really gloomly, because it has the hope of faith (i.e. the author misses the fact his defence of Pope Francis' positivity could also mostly be applied to Pope Gregory XVI). And to be honest, in that respect, I agree with the author.

But that does not speak to the very real differences in tone and attitude to the world which can be identified in the Popes of the long 19th century, the documents of Vatican II and Laudato Si.

165rrp
Juin 29, 2015, 9:56 am

There have been many criticisms of Laudato Si, many slightly rabid, but this one, I think captures my concerns well.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/06/18/pope-francis-is-undul...

Some quotes

Firstly, as is often the case with Pope Francis, his analysis of the economic state of the world is unduly pessimistic. It is correct to say that pollution leads to premature deaths. Indeed, many would argue that climate change will do so and some that it already does so. But, there are trade-offs. And the underlying picture is one of huge increases in life expectation and health because of the economic development that is taking place. Indeed, in many parts of the world, the environment is improving dramatically.

Within the document there are also various ad hoc attacks on the market economy, some of which are somewhat bizarre.

Though he criticised water privatisation, nowhere in the document did the Pope mention fossil fuel energy subsidies

As well as criticising water privatisation, he also criticised carbon tax credits – widely regarded as the way to reduce carbon emissions that has the smallest cost to the poor.

Given that poorly defined and enforced property rights lie at the heart of so many environmental problems, especially in poor countries, this whole area is a big omission from this encyclical.

166John5918
Juin 30, 2015, 1:31 pm

A Catholic Peacebuilding Network resource guide to Laudato Si' can be found at https://cpn.nd.edu/assets/166957/cpn_news_brief_june_2015_conflict_resources.pdf

167John5918
Modifié : Juil 1, 2015, 11:26 am

Cardinal Turkson says we must revise what we mean by growth (Tablet)

the biggest challenge in reducing poverty and environmental degradation was neither scientific nor technological, “but rather within our minds and hearts”.

Turkson added that to achieve these twin aims mankind would need “seriously to review the dominant model of development, production, commerce and consumption”


He probably wouldn't agree with the Catholic Herald as quoted in >165 rrp:.

168John5918
Juil 1, 2015, 3:26 pm

Pope Francis adds ‘secular Jewish feminist’ Naomi Klein to climate team (Crux)

Known for her fierce criticism of 21st century capitalism...

The Catholic Herald in >165 rrp: refers to some of Pope Francis' attacks on the market economy as "bizarre", but actually they are building on some of Benedict XVI's reflections, and are not really "bizarre" at all except to, er, supporters of free market capitalism.

169rrp
Modifié : Juil 1, 2015, 8:19 pm

>168 John5918:

Philip Booth's article in the Catholic Herald, to which I linked in >165 rrp: do indeed call some of the Pope's ad hoc attacks on the market economy "somewhat bizarre". The market economy is, of course, not synonymous with free market capitalism. Nearly every economy in the world is, in part, a market economy, even communist China. But Booth gives a specific example of a "somewhat bizarre" comment by the Pope on a specific example of the economy.

For example, the Pope argues that water should not be privatised because it is a scarce resource. In fact, the purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources. Whilst it is important that all have access to clean water – and improvements in this regard are a crucial element of the economic development of the last 30 years – to argue that it should not be provided by markets is no more sensible than arguing that food should not be provided by markets. Indeed, in many African and Asian countries (as well as in the US and Australia, for that matter), water shortages are seriously exacerbated by relatively wealthy industrial and farming interests benefiting from water subsidies and growing totally inappropriate water-thirsty crops. These subsidies are highly regressive.

"Highly regressive" is economist speak for "it hurts the poor". Can anyone argue that in this instance control of water resources by the state is a good thing? We can all agree that access to clean water is something everyone should have, as a moral right. The discussion should then be on the best way to ensure everyone has access to clean water.

There was an example in the Economist the other day, not water but milk. If the poor of Lagos want to buy fresh milk, they would have to pay three times what it would cost in Europe. "Cheap long-life imports sell for less than half the price of local milk. Nigeria spends roughly $1m a day on imported milk powder."

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21653616-what-milk-trade-re...

The problem here is that the state is dysfunctional. The state gets in the way of an efficient allocation of a scarce resource. "Until the 1960s, Nigeria was a net exporter of food. Now it imports $3 billion a year more than it exports." The larger problems are "lousy roads, a shortage of finance and the insecurity of land tenure". Poor government is the problem, not "free market capitalism".

170rrp
Modifié : Juil 1, 2015, 8:40 pm

I am starting to read The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse by Pascal Bruckner. The Introduction is titled "The Return of Original Sin" contrasting what he was taught in a Jesuit school 50 years ago of the requirement to daily "testify our adhesion to the Holy Scripture and drive Satan out of our hearts" with modern views of Ecologism.

"What a surprise to witness, half a century later and in an agnostic society, the powerful return of this frame of mind, but this time under the aegis of science." ... "What is it, after all, if not the gaseous equivalent of Original Sin, of the stain we inflict on our Mother Gaia by the simple fact of being present and breathing."

The reason the Pope, Naomi Klein, Cardinal Turkson and an atheist scientist (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) can all hold hands and sing the same song, is that they have all drunk the Cool Aid and signed up to newest world religion, Ecologism.

171John5918
Modifié : Juil 2, 2015, 12:39 am

>170 rrp: The reason the Pope, Naomi Klein, Cardinal Turkson and an atheist scientist (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) can all hold hands and sing the same song, is that they have all drunk the Cool Aid and signed up to newest world religion, Ecologism.

Nice sound bite, but meaningless.

Edited to add:

Fracketeering: how capitalism is power-hosing the last drops of value out of us all (Guardian)

172John5918
Juil 2, 2015, 2:10 am

Pope Francis' environmental encyclical gets waylaid in West Virginia (NCR)

West Virginia Bishop Michael Bransfield's public response to Pope Francis' ecological encyclical seems less informed by these pastoral statements than by coal industry talking points...

174rrp
Juil 3, 2015, 4:07 pm

Now normally I'd rank anything Prince Charles says as \REDACTED\. But in this case, the opening is something we, as in Prince Charles, you and I, could probably find common ground on. He advocates "ending the taxpayer subsidies enjoyed by coal, oil and gas companies". I am strongly against this political interference in the workings of the free market.

175margd
Juil 4, 2015, 6:44 am

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space.

We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest.

A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,

restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.

Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion

to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty...

We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.

--Albert Einstein

176John5918
Juil 5, 2015, 1:10 am

Catholic economist: Pope Francis has 'measured' critique of US economy (NCR)

Harsh criticisms meted out by Pope Francis on free-market capitalism have sparked backlash from some fiscal conservatives...

177rrp
Juil 5, 2015, 12:04 pm

That article ends with the quote

"The pope is not an economist and his job is not to \propose\ concrete economic policies"

to which we all say, "hear, hear!".

The Pope is entitled, nay has an obligation, to layout moral guidance, "help the poor", "turn from the idolatry of money" etc. However, he is not qualified to evaluate the effect of concrete economic policies and which will meet those goals and which will not.

"Conscience arises from social relationships and is the source of mankind's ability to form moral judgements, in spite of man's natural inclinations towards self-interest. Sympathy, the act of observing others makes people aware of themselves and the morality of their own behaviour."

That is a quote from the Wikipedia page about Adam Smith, "the father of modern economics", and a proponent of free markets. When you want to know what we should do, listen to the Pope, by all means. When you want to know how to do it, listen to Adam Smith and his intellectual descendants.

179margd
Juil 26, 2015, 7:59 am

With spiritual leaders speaking with one voice, first half of 2015 hottest ever with a monster El Nino in the works, drought & wildfires etc., surely our leaders will finally initiate some substantive controls on greenhouse gases this fall in Paris... Let us pray!

...NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden says, in addition to the dwindling snow pack, "glaciers are melting, sea ice is melting, sea levels reached record highs last year, the ocean heat was record high last year, sea surface temperatures were record highs last year, so you put it all together and there's a definite trend."

It's a trend Blunden expects to continue into 2015 and beyond as long as, she says, greenhouse gas levels continue to rise year after year...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-bad-news-for-western-drought-monster-hot-el-ni...

181margd
Août 10, 2015, 5:50 am

The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here
The worst predicted impacts of climate change are starting to happen — and much faster than climate scientists expected
By Eric Holthaus August 5, 2015

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-...

183margd
Modifié : Août 11, 2015, 6:11 am

>182 rrp: ...Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern. That seems wrong to me.

I'm surprised that Matt Ridley would string together such cases to create doubt re climate science.

There are surprises along the way (how the story unfolds), but with all the "noise" there can be no doubt now in minds of fair observers that increasing heat threatens flora, fauna, and civilization as we know it.

As much as individual scientists may cling to pet theories, there are always "young Turks" and irascible outliers willing to challenge them. The process is messy, but in the end science is self-correcting (if not scientists, who can be as frustrating to work with as any people on earth in my experience).

Also, while greens might seem at times to have undue influence--and they can be pains, too, IMHO--"Big Broccoli" is nothing compared to "Big Ag" or "Big Oil" or Big Govt!

For example in Canada, ...By the sixth year of the Harper regime, most scientists knew it was foolish and dangerous to try to buck the system. The Index on Censorship took a survey of 4,000 Canadian scientists in 2013. Only 14 per cent said they felt they would be able to share a concern about public health and safety, or a threat to the environment, without fear of retaliation or censure from their department or agency.... http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/01/26/the-war-on-brains.html

184margd
Modifié : Août 13, 2015, 7:49 am

See animated map of change in Arctic ice 1999 to 2014 at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150803-arctic-ice-obama-climate-natio... .

...The shrinking of the Arctic ice sheet in the 10th edition of the National Geographic Atlas of the World is one of the most striking changes in the publication's history.

After the publication of the atlas in September 2014, the ice has melted even further, notes National Geographic Geographer Juan José Valdés.

"The end of Arctic summer is still several weeks away, and it's still too early to say if another record will be broken. But one need only look at the maps derived from satellite imagery to see the impact of global warming," he says...

186rrp
Août 15, 2015, 11:32 pm

>183 margd:

...Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern. That seems wrong to me.

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Ridley is talking about scientists who are very well prepared to debate the science behind their concerns; they are prevented from doing so by "fear of retaliation or censure from their department or agency" as in your example of scientists in Canada.

I'm surprised that Matt Ridley would string together such cases to create doubt re climate science.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. Ridley isn't "creating" doubt about climate science. Some doubt exists, otherwise there wouldn't be any science left to do. There happens to be a lot of doubt in climate science, because of it's very nature. There is a lot still to do. Pretending otherwise does no one any good. However, I think you will find that Ridley and the scientists he quotes don't buck the general consensus; that the Earth is gradually getting hotter and that humans activity is partly to blame. What he is saying is that it probably isn't such an important issue that we should all be running around like Chicken Little, and particularly that we shouldn't label those with legitimate doubts as evil.

There are surprises along the way (how the story unfolds), but with all the "noise" there can be no doubt now in minds of fair observers that increasing heat threatens flora, fauna, and civilization as we know it.

We agree there is a "threat", and I am sure we will agree that there is a similar "threat" from the coming ice age. Where reasonable people might disagree is the degree of probability of that threat being realized and what insurance we should take out against it happening (i.e. how much of our valuable current resources should we spend to prevent it, as opposed to solving other major problems we collectively face, such as poverty, disease, political instability etc. around the world.)

187rrp
Modifié : Août 16, 2015, 12:05 am

>185 John5918:

Well that article is a real muddle.

“our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.”

Yes. That must be right. The political structures of the Middle Ages are almost exactly the equivalent of most modern political structures when it comes to "human responsibility, values and conscience". You just have to compare Obama, Cameron, Merkle and all that lot to the Borgias.

to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons available for modern warfare

Nothing used since Nagasaki has been more deadly than that bomb; and most deaths in wars since then, like most wars since war was invented, have been caused by famine and disease. The most effective weapons in terms of deaths caused are probably rifles, mines and mortars which have been with us for quite a while. Modern weapons are notably more precise however.

The goal is to extract everything possible from things while ignoring the reality in front of us.

That is gobbledegook.

This leads economists, financiers and experts in technology to accept the idea of unlimited growth “based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.”

As is that. No economist believes that "there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods". The whole premise behind economics is to find the most efficient use of the limited resources available to us.

"Economic Interests" exist because there is demand from people for the things they produce. They wouldn't produce those things if those people didn't give something back in return. That's what we call profit. It's basic human nature.

Technology must serve humanity, not the market.

The last time I check, the market was humanity, unless we are now selling stuff to aliens (I don't keep up as much as I should.)

For Francis, “the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity.”

Ah. But is it a "crisis"? It must be, because the Pope says so.

I give up.

The Pope should stick to his pastoral duties and stay away from economics and science. Start with the Beatitudes. Oh no. That way leads us through Liberation Theology to Marxism. Let's not pretend that the Pope is trying to lead us along that path.

188rrp
Août 17, 2015, 4:23 pm

The Green Scare Problem.

or if you don't subscribe

Environmental threats are often exaggerated, and remedies do more harm.

Many exaggerated early claims about the dangers of climate change have now been debunked. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has explicitly abandoned previous claims that malaria will likely get worse, that the Gulf Stream will stop flowing, the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice sheet will disintegrate, a sudden methane release from the Arctic is likely, the monsoon will collapse or long-term droughts will become more likely.

190margd
Modifié : Août 21, 2015, 5:00 pm

>189 John5918: Turkson message to Islamic Symposium on Climate Change

Declaration from Islamic Symposium on Climate Change calls on energy users and producers alike to act.

"...The authors of the Islamic declaration ended the document with a quote by the Prophet Muhammad: “The world is sweet and verdant, and verily Allah has made you stewards in it, and He sees how you acquit yourselves.”"

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/18/islamic-scholars-issue-climate-c...

The statement itself is interesting read:
http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-chang...

*************************************************

"...Pope Francis said he was instituting (World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation) for Catholics because he shares the concern of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who initiated a similar prayer day for the Orthodox Church in 1989.

Metropolitan John of Pergamon, who represented the patriarch at the public presentation June 18 of Pope Francis' encyclical, "Laudato Si'," had suggested there that all Christians join in prayer Sept. 1...

...The annual World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, Pope Francis said, will be a time for individuals and communities to "reaffirm their personal vocation to be stewards of creation, to thank God for the wonderful handiwork which he has entrusted to our care, and to implore his help for the protection of creation as well as his pardon for the sins committed against the world in which we live..."

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/pope-designates-sept-1-as-...

191margd
Sep 3, 2015, 7:38 am

Bill Gates on immediate need to help poor farmers adapt to climate change:

"...I'm optimistic that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change and feed the world -- if we act now. There's an urgent need for governments to invest in new clean energy innovations that will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt rising temperatures. At the same time, we need to recognize that it's already too late to stop all of the impacts of hotter temperatures. Even if the world discovered a cheap, clean energy source next week, it would take time to kick our fossil fuel-powered habits and shift to a carbon-free future. That's why it's critical for the world to invest in efforts to help the poorest adapt."

"Many of the tools they'll need are quite basic -- things that they need anyway to grow more food and earn more income: access to financing, better seeds, fertilizer, training and markets where they can sell what they grow."

"Other tools are new and tailored to the demands of a changing climate... rice varieties are being developed that can withstand drought, heat, cold and soil problems like high salt contamination..."

"supports for smallholder farmers...In Africa, researchers are using satellite images to create detailed soil maps, which can inform farmers about what varieties will thrive on their land."

"Still, a better seed or a new technology can't transform the lives of farming families until it's in their hands. A number of organizations, including a non-profit group called One Acre Fund, are finding ways to ensure that farmers take advantage of these solutions. One Acre Fund works closely with more than 200,000 African farmers, providing access to financing, tools and training. By 2020, they aim to reach one million farmers..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-gates/climate-change-farmers_b_8078436.html

194rrp
Oct 27, 2015, 8:11 am

>193 John5918:

"The Catholic church has called on UN negotiators convening in Paris at the end of November to agree a goal for “complete decarbonization” by 2050, and set a legally binding agreement to limit global temperature increase."

"But despite his rhetoric the church has not endorsed any campaign to divest from fossil fuel investments."

That's right. Put your money where your mouth is. Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

Besides, if the Church really cared for the poor, they would be supporting an expansion of the economies of the developing world, which cannot happen without increased use of cheap forms of energy, i.e. coal.

195rrp
Oct 27, 2015, 8:13 am

And what happened to the "Church stays out of science" bit? What does the Church know about the sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Increased carbon dioxide increases crop yields, feeding more poor people. Hasn't the price of food worldwide steadily been decreasing?

196timspalding
Oct 27, 2015, 2:54 pm

So, if the church doesn't know about the price of food, is it prohibited from advocating for feeding the poor?

197John5918
Oct 27, 2015, 3:18 pm

Dom Hélder Câmara: 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.'

I suspect that if he were still alive he might well ask whether global climate change is one of the reasons why the poor have no food.

198JaneAustenNut
Oct 27, 2015, 3:40 pm

On a rainy day in NC, I have been scanning through your discussions and just wanted to understand your discussions/comments. The price of food here in NC is rising steadily and the costs for everyone is going up fast. Price of things especially food is skyrocketing. Our church and its members are always helping the poor and homeless with food procurement. An example is Samaritans Kitchen and The various Food Banks. Our UMC pastor preached on helping poor children on this past Sunday. My son and daughter-in-law both work two jobs and they can barely keep food and everything else going. Only through both sets of grandparents are they making ends meet. What has happened to America? How does this affect Climate Warming? I am open to opinions.... shouldn't we also discuss how Global Warming is or will affect job creation? Piedmont North Carolina has a terrible problem with good paying jobs.

199rrp
Oct 27, 2015, 9:00 pm

>196 timspalding:

If the Church has a primary goal of helping the poor, then the Church should support policies which will help the poor, and not support policies which hinder the poor. Policies which help the poor are those which are likely to result in higher living standards for the poor.

"Complete decarbonization" will harm the poor. It will prevent their access to cheap sources of electricity, which are needed to power homes (reducing a reliance on burning wood, dung and other fuels which are unsafe and cause indoor pollution and cost many lives each year), to power factories (increasing employment and raising wages) and to power transport (a major part of the cost of the bulk food goods). Cheap electricity comes, and will come for a long while, from burning carbon.

If the Church wants to help the poor, the last thing it should do is advocate "complete decarbonization".

200rrp
Modifié : Oct 27, 2015, 9:09 pm

>198 JaneAustenNut:

Food inflation in the US is running at around 1.6% per annum, close to the total inflation rate over the last few years. I don't think that could be said to be "going up fast". I suppose there may be local variations.

Worldwide, food prices spiked in 2011 and are now falling and, in real terms, are back to 1980 levels and lower than those in the 1960s.

This maybe in part due to the increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is promoting plant growth (but there are many other factors.)

201rrp
Oct 27, 2015, 9:11 pm

>197 John5918:

I suspect that if he were still alive he might well ask whether global climate change is one of the reasons why the poor have no food.

He could ask, but the answer would be a definite no.

202hf22
Modifié : Oct 27, 2015, 10:42 pm

>201 rrp:

Indeed, at this point, addressing global warming is going to cause more increases in food for the poor, than ignoring it would (i.e. due to the extra costs for transport etc). That would however change long term as the temp increase predictions arise however, which would impact disproportionally on poor people and poor countries (i.e. due to lacking the resources to adapt).

Remaining examples of poor access to food as at now have other reasons, not entirely unrelated to how we setup our economic systems nationally and globally (i.e. very related to).

203John5918
Oct 28, 2015, 12:07 am

>199 rrp: "Complete decarbonization" will harm the poor.

That's an opinion. The reality is far more complex.

>201 rrp: Poor people in many parts of the world are already seeing a reduction in their food security due to climate change affecting their crops. To subsistence farmers, food prices are not the main issue, as they grow what they eat.

204margd
Oct 28, 2015, 8:24 am

By 2100, too hot for hajj? Look for major, major emigration from Persian Gulf by end of century, if C emissions not curbed--as in will the last person to leave please turn out the lights...

(Recent drought in Syria drove rural folks into cities, a factor said to contribute to the "Arab Spring" uprising that preceded current tragedy.)

**************************************************************

JS Pal and EAB Eltahir. 2015. Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability (Letter). Nature Climate Change (Published online Oct 26 2015) doi:10.1038/nclimate2833 . http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2833.html

A human body may be able to adapt to extremes of dry-bulb temperature (commonly referred to as simply temperature) through perspiration and associated evaporative cooling provided that the wet-bulb temperature (a combined measure of temperature and humidity or degree of ‘mugginess’) remains below a threshold of 35 °C. (ref. 1). This threshold defines a limit of survivability for a fit human under well-ventilated outdoor conditions and is lower for most people. We project using an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations that extremes of wet-bulb temperature in the region around the Arabian Gulf are likely to approach and exceed this critical threshold under the business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas concentrations. Our results expose a specific regional hotspot where climate change, in the absence of significant mitigation, is likely to severely impact human habitability in the future.

***************************************************************
Too Hot for Hajj? Scientists Raise Alarm About Persian Gulf's Future Climate (Forbes)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanboyle/2015/10/26/too-hot-for-hajj-scientists-rai...

205rrp
Oct 28, 2015, 9:41 am

>202 hf22:

I am sorry. Could you clarify? I am not sure what you meant by "addressing global warming". If you meant "complete decarbonization", I don't see how that is "going to cause more increases in food for the poor". In fact, it will do the opposite.

206rrp
Oct 28, 2015, 9:51 am

>203 John5918:

That's an opinion. The reality is far more complex.

All we have is opinion. And if you think reality is complex, then it's even more complex that we thought.

Poor subsistence farmers are just the sort of people we should be helping. Subsistence farming is unproductive. Subsistence farmers would contribute much more to society, and be less poor, if they were given the change of a well paid, worthwhile job in industry, and most would rush to take one. We should certainly be planning to help those subsistence farmers who are affected by a changing climate to find useful employment by creating opportunities for employment, by investing in infrastructure etc.. We should be planning to help all subsistence farmers find useful and productive employment, if they want it.

207John5918
Oct 28, 2015, 10:10 am

>206 rrp: The reality is, in the current global economy (which Pope Francis critiques), the poor subsistence farmers are going to be with us for a long time. In the meantime, climate change has already begun to have a detrimental impact on their existence. I wonder whether any of them will still be alive by the time your utopian employment opportunities come to pass?

208rrp
Oct 28, 2015, 11:40 am

>208 rrp:

I believe that even fewer of them will be alive if we implement "complete decarbonization". And I'd settle for normal jobs, not utopian ones.

We should start from where we agree, which is that it would be better if the poor of the world were less poor. The conversation should be about what are the most effective means of bringing that about. The tried and tested way is economic development. Economic development can only take place in a politically stable environment, no wars, no famines. It may be utopian of me to wish for that, but I don't believe I am alone.

209Jesse_wiedinmyer
Oct 28, 2015, 12:25 pm

Well, if you're looking for a politically stable environment, anthropogenic climate change is not the means to achieve it.

210rrp
Oct 28, 2015, 1:10 pm

>209 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

True. But the climate will change whatever we do. The question is what should we be doing to ensure politically stable environments for all and to encourage the economic growth that will pull the poor out of poverty and enable the soft of stable civil societies that benefit the developed world.

211John5918
Oct 28, 2015, 1:25 pm

I've spent the last forty years working in developing countries where there is a high percentage of poor subsistence farmers. In that period I have heard all sorts of theories advanced about how to make them less poor. It's not clear to me that there is any single "tried and tested way". Mind you, this is the first time I have heard "complete decarbonization" put forward as an obstacle to making them less poor.

212rrp
Oct 28, 2015, 3:32 pm

>211 John5918:

It's not clear to me that there is any single "tried and tested way".

Fair enough. But the end goal is development, is it not, and development as fast as it practicable?

What do you think of the way China pulled a billion or so people out of poverty?

http://timharford.com/2011/05/how-china-boomed-by-trial-and-error/

Could China have done it without using carbon? Was what China did immoral?

What about the ideas of Francis Fukuyama, e.g. The Origins of Political Order?

Political order needs,

1. State building
2. Rule of law
3. Accountable government

213hf22
Modifié : Oct 28, 2015, 8:26 pm

>205 rrp:

Sorry, increases in food prices, in the short term.

214rrp
Oct 28, 2015, 10:09 pm

>213 hf22: Oh. That makes more sense.

215margd
Oct 29, 2015, 6:51 pm

Arid, hardscrabble landscapes could cover more than half of Earth’s land surface by 2100, a new study finds.

The expansion of drylands — fragile regions where vegetation is sparse and soil is fairly infertile — will predominantly occur in developing countries, according to new climate change simulations published October 26 in Nature Climate Change. That’s also where the greatest population growth is expected. More humans will mean a greater need for food and farming, which could further degrade and expand dryland environments, say Jianping Huang of Lanzhou University in China and colleagues.

Currently, drylands make up about 40 percent of Earth’s land surface.

See map at:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/parched-parts-earth-expanding

**********************************************

J. Huang et al. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nature Climate Change. Published online October 26, 2015. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2837. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2837.html

Drylands are home to more than 38% of the total global population and are one of the most sensitive areas to climate change and human activities1, 2. Projecting the areal change in drylands is essential for taking early action to prevent the aggravation of global desertification3, 4. However, dryland expansion has been underestimated in the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations5 considering the past 58 years (1948–2005). Here, using historical data to bias-correct CMIP5 projections, we show an increase in dryland expansion rate resulting in the drylands covering half of the global land surface by the end of this century. Dryland area, projected under representative concentration pathways (RCPs) RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, will increase by 23% and 11%, respectively, relative to 1961–1990 baseline, equalling 56% and 50%, respectively, of total land surface. Such an expansion of drylands would lead to reduced carbon sequestration and enhanced regional warming6, 7, resulting in warming trends over the present drylands that are double those over humid regions. The increasing aridity, enhanced warming and rapidly growing human population will exacerbate the risk of land degradation and desertification in the near future in the drylands of developing countries, where 78% of dryland expansion and 50% of the population growth will occur under RCP8.5.

216margd
Modifié : Oct 29, 2015, 7:02 pm

Rising temperatures complicate efforts to manage cod fishery

...Based on ocean area, the Gulf of Maine — a productive fishing area in New England — heated faster than 99.9 percent of the global ocean over the last decade, the researchers report ...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rising-temperatures-complicate-efforts-manag...

***************************************************

A. Pershing et al. Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science. Published online October 29, 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aac9819
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rising-temperatures-complicate-efforts-manag...

Abstract. Several studies have documented fish populations changing in response to long-term warming. Over the last decade, sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Maine increased faster than 99% of the global ocean. The warming, which was related to a northward shift in the Gulf Stream and to changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal and Pacific Decadal Oscillations, led to reduced recruitment and increased mortality in the region’s Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock. Failure to recognize the impact of warming on cod contributed to overfishing. Recovery of this fishery depends on sound management, but the size of the stock depends on future temperature conditions. The experience in the Gulf of Maine highlights the need to incorporate environmental factors into resource management.

217rrp
Oct 29, 2015, 11:18 pm

>202 hf22:

To cross post. How best should we help/allow them to grow their economies now in order that they will be both better off now and better off in the future?

I say let's do what we can now to allow them to become richer so that they will have more resources to enable them to adapt to any future catastrophe, if one happens. That means keeping the cost of energy low and allowing them to burn cheap carbon fuels. Doing otherwise, by say imposing a 'complete decarbonization' would be, in my opinion, immoral.

218rrp
Oct 29, 2015, 11:27 pm

>216 margd:

"expects"
"are likely to"
"could further degrade"

Some quote from your recent posts from the press.

What we need are hard numbers, not this wooly "expects" and "could". Numbers not based on climate modeling muddling.

219hf22
Modifié : Oct 30, 2015, 12:42 am

>217 rrp:

Not sure that works. If the short term wealth comes from burning through limited resources, being both the carbon fuels and potentially the adaptable temp. rise, that could actually leave them in a worse position.

The question of stopping change versus adapting to is something which could be debated, but we would have to think about how resources which help us adapt can be created and maintained.

220rrp
Oct 30, 2015, 1:50 am

>219 hf22:

The question of stopping change versus adapting to is something which could be debated, but we would have to think about how resources which help us adapt can be created and maintained.

Absolutely! But not could, should.

The first point I would make is that change is inevitable, and that adaptation is a necessity. History tells us so. Do you not agree?

221hf22
Oct 30, 2015, 1:53 am

>220 rrp:

Some level of change and adaption, certainly. The speed and scope of the change however is important

222margd
Modifié : Oct 30, 2015, 4:24 am

>218 rrp: Not merely "press", peer-reviewed literature--Nature and Science are first rate--teasing out processes unfortunately underway with major implications for food production.

223rrp
Oct 30, 2015, 10:28 am

>221 hf22:

The speed and scope of the change however is important.

Sure. But the speed and scope of change are uncertain. But that's maybe slightly the wrong way to look at the problem. What we need to estimate is how likely it is that a catastrophic event will occur within a given time period. If floods are predicted to occur more often and with greater intensity, then you are more likely to buy flood insurance for next year. If the frequency and intensity are high enough, you would consider building a flood protection wall or moving house (which, we assume, would cost a lot more than buying insurance.) If you think you need the wall but can't afford it, maybe you should go back to school and retrain for a higher paying job so that you can afford to build the wall.

So the question is -- should you buy insurance, build a flood wall or go back to school? That all depends on your estimate of the risk, the likelihood of the frequency and intensity of possible future catastrophic events.

As in all things when dealing with an uncertain future we need to estimate the risks, and then work out how much we are willing to pay to buy down those risks.

224rrp
Oct 30, 2015, 10:28 am

>222 margd:

Possibly, maybe, perhaps ...

225margd
Oct 30, 2015, 4:53 pm

Buddhist Climate Change Statement to World Leaders 2015
http://gbccc.org/

We, the undersigned Buddhist leaders, come together prior to the 21st Session of the Conference of Parties (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris, in order to add our voices to the growing calls for world leaders to cooperate with compassion and wisdom and reach an ambitious and effective climate agreement.

We are at a crucial crossroads where our survival and that of other species is at stake as a result of our actions. There is still time to slow the pace of climate change and limit its impacts, but to do so, the Paris summit will need to put us on a path to phase out fossil fuels. We must ensure the protection of the most vulnerable, through visionary and comprehensive mitigation and adaptation measures...

226rrp
Oct 30, 2015, 5:47 pm

I wonder how much the Dalai Lama knows about the Navier–Stokes equations? About as much as the Pope, I would guess.

Be honest now, without looking it up, how much do you know about the Navier–Stokes equations?

227John5918
Oct 31, 2015, 12:48 am

>226 rrp: They do have scientific advisors, you know.

229margd
Nov 1, 2015, 1:15 pm

Catholic Church Leaders Issue Appeal on Climate Change

Roman Catholic cardinals, patriarchs and bishops from around the world on Monday appealed to climate-change negotiators to approve a “fair, legally binding and truly transformational climate agreement” when they meet at a widely anticipated United Nations conference in Paris next month.

Representatives of the church from five continents signed the appeal in Vatican City. They said it was inspired by Pope Francis’ sweeping encyclical on the environment, “Laudato Si,” issued in June, which forcefully calls for action to stem environmental destruction and climate change....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/world/europe/catholic-church-leaders-issue-app...

230rrp
Nov 1, 2015, 3:40 pm

>229 margd:

Governments must also set limits to global temperature increases, the appeal stated. Decisions made in Paris must be legally binding, the prelates said.

I got as far as this before I stumbled.

Maybe they should remember to story of King Canute. Governments have as much power to stop the climate from changing as King Canute could stop the tide from coming in. The problem is, you see, no one has any idea of the underlying trend in the climate, in the absence of contributions under the control of Governments.

“fair, legally binding and truly transformational climate agreement”

However, "fair" sounds good. Fair to whom though? "Legaly binding", don't hold your breath. "Truly transformational", I though the whole principle was one of conservatism, return to the good-old-days?

231John5918
Nov 1, 2015, 11:20 pm

>230 rrp: no one has any idea of the underlying trend in the climate, in the absence of contributions under the control of Governments

Ah, now I understand. It's all a conspiracy theory.

232hf22
Modifié : Nov 2, 2015, 1:17 am

>231 John5918:

I think you will find rrp is referring to the human controlled part of the climate trend, as compared to whatever natural contributions may exist, as that controllable by Governments.

I think the mainstream view would be we have a better grasp on this split than rrp allows, but the ability to exercise State control over the human contribution is the pretty basic to the current solutions proposed (i.e. emission trading schemes, carbon taxes etc). Hence that big intergovernmental meeting in Paris the Pope is so keen to lobby.

233rrp
Nov 2, 2015, 10:00 am

>232 hf22:

I think you will find rap is referring to the human controlled part of the climate trend, as compared to whatever natural contributions may exist, as that controllable by Governments.

That's right. Thanks.

>231 John5918:

I am still interesting in your opinion on the morality of the way China is pulling so many millions of people out of poverty. Is that act immoral because by doing so, much carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere?

234inkdrinker
Nov 2, 2015, 11:17 am

rrp 233:

So if I could bring happiness to 100 people by killing you that would be justified? I don't think so, but you seem to think that would be okay.

235rrp
Nov 2, 2015, 11:54 am

>234 inkdrinker:

That is not a valid analogy. The Chinese have pulled millions out of poverty. Many millions are alive who would have died. In doing so they have contributed to the carbon dioxide load in the atmosphere which, might, repeat might, cause problems in the future to people in the rest of the world, perhaps causing other people to die (numbers and probabilities uncertain.) They have certainly, however, improved their own population's chances of adapting to any future changes in climate by increasing the capacity of their economy (they are innovating and producing more and more in the field of renewable energy, for example.)

Is what they did immoral?

236John5918
Modifié : Nov 2, 2015, 12:08 pm

>233 rrp:

It's not an either/or proposition; either we turn our planet into a lifeless wasteland while bringing poor people out of poverty (and thus they eventually die anyway from climate change) or we leave them languishing in poverty. No. There are other options. As Pope Francis and his predecessor both pointed out, one of those other options involves challenging the current economic systems.

237inkdrinker
Nov 2, 2015, 12:51 pm

200,000 people a year, just in the US, die early deaths due to air pollution. This is just in the US and doesn't consider other forms of pollution caused by industry. It also doesn't address the idea that global climate change is likely to lead to many more deaths... but hey... The analogy doesn't hold.

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-air-pollution-early-deaths-year.html

238rrp
Nov 2, 2015, 1:00 pm

>236 John5918:

You didn't answer the question. Is what China did and is doing immoral?

239rrp
Nov 2, 2015, 1:05 pm

>237 inkdrinker:

Air pollution is not the same thing as climate change. Another bad analogy. But while we are on it, indoor pollution caused by burning wood and other fuels inside their dwellings kills many thousands in Africa and India. Cheap electricity supplied by clean coal power stations would save many of those lives.

And you don't address exactly how many deaths global climate change is likely to cause. No one knows the answer for certain, but we do know the numbers you read in the alarmist press are most likely (to use that word again) exaggerated.

240inkdrinker
Nov 2, 2015, 1:17 pm

Currently 400,000 death per year due to climate change.... 600,000 a year by 2030.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121032/map-climate-change-kills-more-people-w...

Add to that the 200,000 a year in the US plus the millions world wide due to air pollution and you've got my analogy... and if you want to argue that speedy industrialization in China hasn't lead to massive air (and other) pollution, you're not functioning in reality/

241John5918
Nov 2, 2015, 1:27 pm

>240 inkdrinker: Thanks for this.

global warming also devastates food security, nutrition, and water safety

This is one of the dynamics we are seeing in Africa.

When the report looked at the added health consequences from burning fossil fuels—aside from climate change—the number of deaths jumps from 400,000 to almost 5 million per year. Carbon-intensive economies see deaths linked to outdoor air pollution, indoor smoke from poor ventilation, occupational hazards, and skin cancer.

Which makes rrp's fascination with burning coal somewhat difficult to understand.

242inkdrinker
Nov 2, 2015, 1:37 pm

241 JTF:
Yeah well, I almost choked on my lunch when I read the words clean coal...

243margd
Nov 3, 2015, 8:57 am

,I>A U.N. expert is warning that more extreme weather, higher temperatures, floods, droughts and rising sea levels linked to climate change are threatening people's access to food over the long term.

Hilal Elver, the U.N. special rapporteur on "the right to food," predicts the negative impact from climate change on agriculture could subject another 600 million people to malnutrition by 2080...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/03/world/europe/ap-eu-united-nations-cli...

244rrp
Nov 3, 2015, 9:36 am

"threatening" -- but absolutely no data to back it up.

245rrp
Nov 3, 2015, 9:40 am

>240 inkdrinker:

The biggest number on the list there was "indoor smoke". Very few people in the west die from "indoor smoke". They get their heat and light from clean power sources, electricity for both heat and light, heat from natural gas. Poor people have to burn things in the rooms where they live, and thus die from "indoor smoke".

246John5918
Nov 3, 2015, 11:14 pm

Almost 40% of Americans 'not too worried' about climate change (Guardian)

In a recent poll, two-thirds of Americans say they accept climate change, and the vast majority say human activities cause it – but they aren’t very worried...

247southernbooklady
Nov 4, 2015, 7:19 am

apres moi, le deluge.

248inkdrinker
Modifié : Nov 4, 2015, 11:43 am

245 rrp:

200,000 Americans a year, hundreds of thousands of Europeans, and hundreds of thousands of urban Chinese are not dying from indoor fires.

ETA: And there are people coming out with smokeless stoves which are inexpensive and environmentally safer... so this issue (indoor fire smoke) can be solved without overly speedy and polluting industrialization which will increase climate change.

250rrp
Modifié : Nov 4, 2015, 11:38 am

>248 inkdrinker:

Strange though. Life expectancy in China has increase from 65 years in 1975 to 75 years in 2015, due to their economic development, increased living standards, and the increased avaiability of basic health care that comes with that development.

Sure, they could improve their pollution problem. But if they implemented "complete decarbonization" right now, they would be able to afford the health care, and life expectancy would decrease.

251inkdrinker
Modifié : Nov 4, 2015, 11:47 am

250 rrp: So is that one of the reasons China is looking to wind and solar power much more than the US?

They aren't doing enough fast enough, but they are doing way more than the US.

252rrp
Nov 5, 2015, 10:26 pm

>251 inkdrinker:

I think, if you check the numbers, the US invested twice as much per capita on renewable energy than China last year.

254inkdrinker
Modifié : Nov 6, 2015, 12:41 pm

252:

I stand somewhat corrected. I believe the stats I had heard were by GDP and in that case China has us.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/26/solar-power-by-country-solar-rankings-by-cou...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

So we are both right and both wrong...

However, my statement was correct in that China is spending more... Just not per person.

255rrp
Nov 6, 2015, 2:27 pm

>254 inkdrinker:

So what was the point about China in >251 inkdrinker:?

China has a pollution problem and is investing in renewable energy. Makes sense. They should also clean up their coal and coal power industries.

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/cleaner-coal-in-ch...

256southernbooklady
Nov 6, 2015, 3:00 pm

There's no such thing as pollution that is not a problem. It's a problem by definition.

257rrp
Modifié : Nov 6, 2015, 3:14 pm

>256 southernbooklady:

No.

I may be a matter of definition, but it really comes down to a matter of degree. Pollution is the presence of things in the environment that could be harmful. Pollution only becomes harmful when it reaches a certain concentration.

Pollution is the inevitable product of all human activity. You breathe out carbon dioxide after all. Low concentrations of pollution are acceptable byproducts of worthwhile and valuable human activity, and are therefore, when all is taken into account, beneficial. Pollution only becomes a problem when it is excessive.

258southernbooklady
Nov 6, 2015, 3:41 pm

>257 rrp: Pollution is the inevitable product of all human activity. You breathe out carbon dioxide after all.

Exactly. Carbon dioxide is not inherently a pollutant. It becomes "pollution" when it is harmful. A plastic bag is not "pollution" until it finds its way into the environment and becomes harmful. In itself, it is just a bag. If it starts causing harm -- kills the bird that swallows it, makes the beach it lands on ugly -- then it is pollution.

259rrp
Nov 6, 2015, 4:22 pm

261rrp
Nov 7, 2015, 11:35 pm

Africa's poor rank climate change last out of 16 priorities.

"The global elite has little idea what afflicts the poor, says Pope Francis. He’s right — but that observation sometimes applies to him, too."

http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-th...

262John5918
Nov 8, 2015, 12:13 am

>261 rrp: Of course there is a hierarchy of needs, and when you're suffering from war, oppression, poverty, lack of education, lack of health care, etc, you don't rank longer-term needs as important as immediate needs. But that doesn't mean that there aren't many people in Africa who recognise that climate change is having an increasingly negative effect on poverty in Africa. The Kenyan activist Wangari Maathai was one shining example. It seems Cardinal Berhaneyesus is now another. Cardinal Turkson too. And many grassroots activists all over Africa.

263John5918
Modifié : Nov 8, 2015, 9:29 am

International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict (Enough Project)

violent conflict can have a disastrous impact on the environment

264rrp
Modifié : Nov 8, 2015, 11:16 am

>262 John5918:

Yes. There is hierarchy of needs. And the problem is that if we turn opposing climate change into a moral cause, a cause more important that finding solutions to these other needs, then they tend to be seen as less important. It's "is a blinkered way of looking at the world’s challenges, and leads us to the wrong responses."

The Pope, Wangari Maathai,, Cardinal Berhaneyesus, Cardinal Turkson and the rest should be using more of their valuable access to the world's press to urge for those top priority things, education, especially for women, better health care, economic growth to create job opportunities, a reduction in corruption, more affordable and nutritious food. They should carefully consider whether any proposed measured against climate change has a positive impact on those things first. If any such measure helps education much more than it helps climate change, then it should be obvious that we give that measure priority. The bigwigs should be strong advocates for those measures and stop drowning the measure with this moral crusade against climate change.

265John5918
Modifié : Nov 8, 2015, 11:58 am

>264 rrp: They are also urging other things. This is not one dimensional. They have carefully considered climate change and they have concluded, unlike climate change deniers, that it is a significant factor that cannot be neglected.

266rrp
Nov 8, 2015, 1:21 pm

>265 John5918:

But that's precisely what I am saying. It's not one dimensional. And all the chatter seems to be about climate change and not about the other things which have, in my opinion and in many others, a much higher priority. I don't think it is possible to neglect climate change as an issue, we just want to see it put in an appropriate perspective, which means not framing it as a moral issue on par with the more pressing issues of human welfare.

267John5918
Nov 8, 2015, 1:26 pm

>265 John5918: I agree: it should be on a par with other "pressing issues of human welfare", albeit on a different time-scale. But because of that longer-term time-scale, in a western world which focuses on short-termism and particularly on short-term economic gains, it has actually been neglected for too long. It deserves a bit of visibility to get it up there at the top of the agenda with other pressing issues. That's what's happening - to the chagrin of those who don't wish to see their short-term economic gains challenged by a longer-term agenda.

268rrp
Modifié : Nov 8, 2015, 2:04 pm

>267 John5918:

I don't agree that it should be on par with those other pressing issues. I think it should have a lower priority. After all, the reason we should we be concerned about climate change is that it has the potential of affecting human welfare. It's just one thing of many that has the potential in the long term to affect human welfare. So in terms of priority, it should come after, not on par, and certainly not before.

The short-term, medium-term and long term economic agenda should be to address those pressing issues of human welfare. If our short-term economic agenda does not, then that's what we should be talking about.

269margd
Nov 8, 2015, 9:37 pm

Without the right policies to keep the poor safe from extreme weather and rising seas, climate change could drive over 100 million more people into poverty by 2030, the World Bank said on Sunday.

In a report, the bank said ending poverty - one of 17 new U.N. goals adopted in September - would be impossible if global warming and its effects on the poor were not accounted for in development efforts...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/11/08/climatechange-poverty-disaster-idINL8N1...

270rrp
Nov 8, 2015, 10:09 pm

>269 margd:

That's an excellent report, with much we can agree on. Thanks for posting it.

271rrp
Modifié : Nov 8, 2015, 10:16 pm

272John5918
Nov 8, 2015, 10:53 pm

273rrp
Nov 8, 2015, 11:48 pm

274John5918
Modifié : Nov 9, 2015, 2:23 am

>272 John5918: After reading that Grauniad piece, I then read Richard Rohr's meditation for today, where he quotes Joanna Macy: "While the agricultural revolution took centuries, and the industrial revolution took generations, this ecological revolution has to happen within a matter of a few years."

276rrp
Nov 9, 2015, 7:10 pm

>275 John5918:

I wouldn't get too excited yet. As yer man from the Met Office said "We have seen a strong El Nino develop in the Tropical Pacific this year and that will have had some impact on this year's global temperature." The last El Nino in 2010 bumped sea surface temperatures over a large area of the Pacific by 1.7 C. I think they are saying this one is an even stronger event. That can skew the data quite a bit.

277margd
Nov 10, 2015, 8:36 am

Science writer Bill Nye, author of Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World released today:

...we have a hard challenge but ... we’re going to save the earth for humanity...

What worries me the most are the social effects, and by that I mean people are going to have to move. They’re going to have to be displaced, and I’m talking about the United States, the developed world. But in the bigger picture, there are people all over the world who are not going to be able to move fast enough. They’re going to have to abandon their material possessions; they’re going to have to abandon their farms, and they’re not going to be able to get clean water for agriculture in general. And so we have to – this is why I’m so passionate about this – take steps right now. The sooner, the better...

...The evidence now is that at one time there were about a hundred humans, a tribe or a large group of tribes, but we squeezed through the evolutionary sieve and here we all are. But somebody will live through all of this, even if it’s the apocalyptic vision that you see in “Road Warrior.” But I would like a lot of people to live through it, like me and you!...

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/06/bill_nye_demolishes_climate_deniers_im_not_a_sci...

279margd
Modifié : Nov 15, 2015, 8:58 am

Good article. We HAVE been lucky, but sooner or later luck will end if we keep releasing new chemicals and drugs to the environment without precautionary approach, attempting to clean up the mess only after disaster strikes. One of these times, there will be no opportunity to respond effectively to prevent loss of atmosphere, an iconic species, a generation, our health, etc. IMHO.

ETA: Fresh Climate Data Confirms 2015 Is Unlike Any Other Year in Human History
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/11/10/huge_el_nino_pushes_climate_t...

280John5918
Nov 16, 2015, 1:53 am

Society 'set for climate change woe' (BBC)

Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages... Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate "sceptic". He has previously highlighted the positive effects of CO2 in fertilising crops and forests. His work is widely cited by climate contrarians...

281rrp
Nov 16, 2015, 12:07 pm

>278 John5918:

The Guardian article is a classic piece of climate change journalistic scaremongering, which has very little substance, designed to sell newspapers, not to make a serious contribution to the debate.

Take the title "The planet’s future is in the balance" suggesting a doomsday is upon us. The planet will have a future. That's not "in the balance".

Comparing anthropomophic climate change to the CFC episode is spurious. When that became know, it was clear what the science was, it was clear what the solution was and it was easy to get a concesus for action which didn't involve a massive change to the way we live. For anthropomophic climate change, the science is moderately clear (but not as clear as the CFC problem), it is not clear what the best solution is and, because the costs are so high, there is no clear consensus for action.

The quoted "best evidence from science" is a link which takes you, not to somewhere like the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the repository for the "best evidence", but to a web page urging us to join those well know scientists "Al Gore, Desmond Tutu, Richard Branson, Winnie Byanyima and Mary Robinson" and "take a selfie" and "sign a petition".

"The base upon which we have built all of this is a stable biosphere" is a false statement. Anyone remember the Little Ice Age?

The "tipping point" stuff is just alarmism. No climate models predicts a "tipping point" or quantifies the risk of one. Sure, it could happen, but how likely is it?

"If we burn all known reserves of fossil fuels, the Antarctic ice sheet will melt completely, causing a rise in sea level of around 58 metres."

Maybe that's true, but it will take many centuries to happen, which is plenty of time to react. Absolutely no cause for alarm.

And who are all the eminent scientists who support this alarmism?

"We’ve seen enormous support from sports stars such as Olympic skier Julia Mancuso, musicians, business leaders and politicians – next week, 15 mayors from major capital cities will sign to show their support."

282rrp
Nov 16, 2015, 12:09 pm

>280 John5918:

This one is marginally better. The only problem is the "woe" in the title.

This is what Prof Richard Tol thinks is the solution.

The best way of combating climate change, he told BBC News, was to maximize economic growth.

BTW. I think your link is wrong.

283John5918
Nov 16, 2015, 11:13 pm

Coal is not the solution to energy poverty, warn aid agencies (Guardian)

“There’s very little evidence to suggest that coal has a role to play in poverty alleviation..."

285margd
Nov 17, 2015, 9:06 am

Eric Rignot (professor of earth sciences, U Cal Irvine): "...His first paper on this work, published this summer, revealed that the fjords are much deeper than existing charts indicated, which means more of the glaciers’ submerged ice is exposed to seawater and can be eroded by it. The resulting interaction, he concluded bluntly, ‘‘will raise sea levels around the world much faster than previously estimated.’’ NASA recently expanded Rignot’s efforts into a broad, five-­year investigative mission designated ‘‘O.M.G.,’’ for ‘‘Oceans Melting Greenland.’’ The name suggests that someone at NASA has a sense of humor and that understanding the ocean-­ice interplay is fairly urgent — especially as warming ocean waters also erode Antarctica’s marine glaciers, many of which are far larger than Greenland’s..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-secrets-in-greenlands-ice-sheets....

286margd
Nov 21, 2015, 9:21 am

US Bishops apparently didn't add climate change to its strategic priorities (2017-2020), but did touch on it briefly in its "voters' guide":

...Care for Our Common Home
86. Care for Creation is a moral issue. Protecting the land, water, and air we share is a religious duty of stewardship and reflects our responsibility to born and unborn children, who are most vulnerable to environmental assault. We must answer the question that Pope Francis posed to the world: "What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?" (Laudato Si', no. 160). There are many concrete steps we can take to assure justice and solidarity between the generations. Effective initiatives are required for energy conservation and the development of alternate, renewable, and clean-energy resources. Our Conference offers a distinctive call to seriously address global climate change, focusing on the virtue of prudence, pursuit of the common good, and the impact on the poor, particularly on vulnerable workers and the poorest nations. The United States should lead in contributing to the sustainable development of poorer nations and promoting greater justice in sharing the burden of environmental blight, neglect, and recovery. It is important that we address the rising number of migrants who are uprooted from their homeland as a consequence of environmental degradation and climate change. They are not currently recognized as refugees under any existing international convention and are thus not afforded legal protections that ought to be due to them...

http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-160.cfm

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-...

287inkdrinker
Nov 23, 2015, 11:01 am

286:

Thank goodness they aren't considered refugees... We would definitely block them from our country if they were... Good god... that would make them terrorists... not just common criminals...

288John5918
Nov 24, 2015, 8:25 am

289John5918
Modifié : Nov 26, 2015, 12:36 am

Pope Francis in Africa: the science and spirituality of climate change (African Arguments)

the agreement on anthropogenic climate change from all corners of society is a consensus unprecedented in history. Science and religion agree...

Well, most of religion. There are a few still holding out against the grain...

World Bank calls for $16bn to help Africa weather the effects of climate change (Guardian)

290rrp
Nov 26, 2015, 12:12 pm

Science and religion agree.

On what? Maybe we should make a list. Perhaps you would like to start.

291John5918
Nov 27, 2015, 11:52 am

293rrp
Nov 27, 2015, 11:52 pm

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21679193-global-warming-cannot-be-dealt-us...

"The priority should be research into crops that can survive extreme weather; better sanitation and health care to make the poor more resilient to climate shocks; and cheap energy, whether green or not. The poor need all these things more than they need gifts of green-power technologies that even the West finds too expensive."

"In short: thinking caps should replace hair shirts, and pragmatism should replace green theology. The climate is changing because of extraordinary inventions like the steam turbine and the internal combustion engine. The best way to cope is to keep inventing."

294margd
Nov 28, 2015, 4:15 am

Relative responsibility of the West, China, India (past & current emissions), and
equitable and effective interventions (author proposes across the board carbon-fee rather than cap-and-trade):

...human-caused climate change is not proportional to current emissions; instead, climate change depends on cumulative emissions. CO2 from early emissions is now largely incorporated into the ocean and biosphere, but it had a longer time to affect climate, compensating for the small fraction remaining in the air today. Stated differently, the date of burning is irrelevant because of the millennial lifetime in the Earth system of CO2 released in burning of fossil fuels.

... the U.S. is responsible for more than a quarter of global climate change. Europe is also responsible for more than one quarter. China is responsible for about 10 percent, India for 3 percent and so on...

China and India coal use is the main source of growing global CO2 emissions, but China and India are not going to attach carbon capture and storage to their thousands of coal plants, which would be hugely expensive. We (the West) used coal and other fossil fuels to raise our standard of living, without capturing the CO2 -- and in the process we burned much of China and India's fair share of the global carbon budget. If that means China and India must capture CO2, the West should pay the cost -- but we know that is not going to happen either.

Per capita responsibility for climate change has the UK, where the industrial revolution began, as most responsible, followed closely by the U.S. and Germany. Chinese responsibility is an order of magnitude smaller and India's share is barely visible.

Another crucial fact is that we have already burned most of the carbon that we can afford to put into the climate system (even under the flawed proposition that 2°C global warming is a safe "guard rail"). In other words, the West burned most of the world's allowable carbon budget.

The scientific community agrees on a crucial fact: we must leave most remaining fossil fuels in the ground, or our children and future generations are screwed...

...collect an across-the-board (oil, gas, coal) carbon fee at domestic mines and ports of entry. If the funds collected are given in equal amount to all legal residents, the fee is revenue neutral and spurs the economy. This is a conservative approach, because it allows the market to assist change and it does not provide a dime to make government bigger.

...a carbon fee would require agreement of only a small number of the major economic powers, for example, the United States and China. Upon agreement, they would place a border duty on products from nations without an equivalent carbon fee, and they would give fee rebates to domestic manufacturers for exports to non-participating nations. This would be a huge incentive for other nations to have an equivalent carbon fee, so they could collect it themselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/title-tk_1_b_8665400.html

296margd
Déc 7, 2015, 6:34 am

Francis quietly sends his shoes to Place de le Republique, which is covered with shoes as part of symbolic rally organized by the NGO Avaaz during the forbidden COP21 demonstration in Paris on Nov. 29, 2015.

http://time.com/4132104/paris-climate-conference-pope-francis/

“I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never,’” (Francis) said when asked if he thought the Paris summit would be a turning point aboard the papal plane on Monday, Reuters reports. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”

http://time.com/4129640/pope-francis-climate-change-paris/

297John5918
Déc 8, 2015, 10:57 pm

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science (Guardian)

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal...

298margd
Déc 13, 2015, 8:50 am

...Pope Francis is encouraging concerted efforts by all so that the climate pact reached in Paris can be put into action.

Francis has made care for the Earth's environment one of his papacy's themes, insisting that the world's poor suffer heavily when climate change isn't addressed.

Speaking to pilgrims and tourists Sunday at the Vatican, he said the deal's "implementation requires concerted effort and generous dedication by the part of everyone."

Francis expressed hope that "special attention, paid to the most vulnerable, be guaranteed." He also urged "the entire international community to continue, with solicitude, on the path undertaken, in the sign of solidarity that will become ever more positive."...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/12/13/world/europe/ap-climate-countdown-the...

300margd
Modifié : Jan 4, 2016, 5:43 am

Wow, talk about immoral--Florida is at extreme risk from sea-level rise--underway--and Gov Scott administration not only instructs state employees not to use term "climate change", it joined lawsuit seeking to block new EPA rules aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from power plants. Ironically, Miami Beach, home to some very rich (Republicans?), is now flooded in places at extreme high tide. From article below, it sounds like many don't realize the water is from the sea!

"The water comes from six sides in Florida." Due to currents(?), sea-level is rising faster in Florida than other parts of east coast of US. Because of porous limestone, dykes are not feasible. Salt-water displaces ground fresh-water used for drinking and irrigation. Saturated limestone cannot absorb rain-water, so more flash floods are expected.

The Siege of Miami
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

301rrp
Modifié : Jan 6, 2016, 1:25 am

I have very little sympathy for rich folks who build expensive properties on what is basically a sand bar in hurricane alley who then complain about flooding. The sea level in Florida has risen a foot in the last hundred years. You would have thought anyone with any sense would have moved to higher ground by now.

The poor who are stuck with worthless properties we should consider helping move, say to Atlanta. That should be safe from the sea.

BTW. I think water from six sides means East, South and West (the sea), North is Lake Okeechobee and the rivers that feed it, Up is rain (from storms which I hear are quite frequent) and Down which is upwelling through the porous limestone bedrock and sandy soils.

302John5918
Jan 6, 2016, 1:37 am

>301 rrp:

I remember in geography lessons in school half a century ago learning about flood plains, such as the Thames flood plain. It has always seemed strange to me that people who live on a geographical feature called a flood plain then appear surprised and indignant when it, er, floods.

The poor who are stuck with worthless properties

This would apply to poor people all over the world, who have little choice as to where they live.

303John5918
Jan 6, 2016, 1:40 am

I found this BBC article interesting as it touches on climate change denial.

The man who studies the spread of ignorance

How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge?

304rrp
Jan 6, 2016, 1:54 am

This would apply to poor people all over the world, who have little choice as to where they live.

Agreed.

305rrp
Modifié : Jan 6, 2016, 2:59 am

>303 John5918:

Interesting but flawed, I think. For one, I think doubt is a "good thing". Without doubt there would be no progress. And so one should always regard with suspicion anyone who doubts that doubt is a "good thing". For another, those who raise doubts are not always spreading ignorance. Those who doubt some aspects of climate change, say, are as likely to know the facts and science of climate change as those who doubt not. However this comment from the article is spot on "It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts." Everyone's opinion on some question of fact, particularly when it is entangled with politics and identity, is strongly influenced by their group affiliation. They know the facts, they know the science and so explaining the science again is going to have no influence on their opinion, which applies both ways. Consensus can only be reached by finding and building on a common ground of shared values.

306southernbooklady
Jan 6, 2016, 9:24 am

>302 John5918: It has always seemed strange to me that people who live on a geographical feature called a flood plain then appear surprised and indignant when it, er, floods.

In the US, anyway, it's not that people are surprised that it floods, its that they have gambled it won't flood while they are there, or before they have made a profit on their investment. Insurance companies, at least, are realists, and thus it is extremely hard or impossible to get flood insurance in high risk areas.

What this means in reality is that when the flood does happen, US taxpayers bear the brunt of the costs in terms of rebuilding, rehabilitating, etc, because that is deemed preferable to letting an economic engine like the city of Miami be destroyed. And, it is almost impossible to look at a family made homeless by Hurricane Katrina and not come to their aid. "You shouldn't have lived there" is a pointless statement at that point.

307margd
Jan 6, 2016, 8:29 pm

Most of the US population lives in a flood plain, I bet. But with climate change, the thousand-year flood may become a hundred-year flood and the hundred-year a ten-year one.

I was in Florida's Key West today--amazing to think that such a lively place may one day be our lost city of Atlantis.

309margd
Modifié : Jan 8, 2016, 7:02 am

Anthropocene. Our ever-increasing population is ultimately responsible, but also, as I recall from presentation at a government-sponsored conference on environment, the ecological footprint of some of us (US?) is ~700x that of others (India?). Now, no one would deny those folks some of the benefits (lights, refrigeration, communication) of developed countries, but if all adopted our car use, say, we are collectively lost.

It will be tough but it really is time to re-engineer our way of life. Some societies, democratic and autocratic both, have reversed unsustainable use of resources (per Jared Diamond's The Fates of Human Societies ), but I'm not sure WE are up to the challenge... (And I say this as one of the 700x--aspiring to 500x, but realistically no better than 685x.)

310margd
Jan 11, 2016, 10:57 am

... Climate change presents a severe ethical challenge, forcing us to confront difficult questions as individual moral agents, and even more so as members of larger political systems. It is genuinely global and seriously intergenerational, and crosses species boundaries. It also takes place in a setting where existing institutions and theories are weak, proving little ethical guidance...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/09/why-climate-change-i...

311rrp
Jan 11, 2016, 1:55 pm

There have actually been seven articles, of which this is the first and an index to the others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/05/the-ethics-of-climat...

Some interesting discussion points.

312margd
Fév 9, 2016, 8:52 am

Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change (perspective of 22 scientists)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

Abstract. Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.

*******************************************

Sea-level rise 'could last twice as long as human history'
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/08/sea-level-rise-could-last-twi...

313St-Johns-Episcopal
Fév 13, 2016, 9:39 am

As an Episcopalian, climate change accepter and church library volunteer I find myself appalled that this discussion represents by far the most active topic in the blog.

Is this really the place for politico-religious finger pointing diatribes? I'd vote no.

314John5918
Fév 13, 2016, 1:12 pm

>313 St-Johns-Episcopal:

It's the place for a conversation about the ethics/morality of climate change denial, sparked by your own Episcopal church, perhaps?

315rrp
Fév 13, 2016, 6:51 pm

... and some would characterize the original statement by Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as a politico-religious finger pointing diatribe.

317margd
Modifié : Fév 24, 2016, 2:31 pm

According to a new study out of Rutgers University, climate change is shifting valuable resources away from temperate zones inhabited by poorer nations and toward the polar regions near wealthier countries.

...The model imagines the fates of two fictitious fishing towns as they interact with their shifting fish stocks and each other. Simulations showed "inclusive wealth" -- fish, trees, plants and other valuable environmental resources -- increasingly shifted to the northern town as the planet warmed.

"We tend to think of climate change as just a problem of physics and biology," Pinsky says. "But people react to climate change as well, and at the moment we don't have a good understanding for the impacts of human behavior on natural resources affected by climate change."

A number of studies have previously shown that the poorest countries are the most vulnerable and least able to react to climate change. The opposite is true of the wealthiest countries -- they can afford to build bridges and flood walls, to migrate and invest in sustainable energy. Shifting resources are likely to exacerbate this dynamic.


http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/02/24/Climate-change-is-taking-from-the-poo...

********************************************************88
Eli P. Fenichel et al. 2016. Wealth reallocation and sustainability under climate change (Perspective). Nature Climate Change 6, 237–244 (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate2871 . http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2871.html

Abstract: Climate change is often described as the greatest environmental challenge of our time. In addition, a changing climate can reallocate natural capital, change the value of all forms of capital and lead to mass redistribution of wealth....

318margd
Modifié : Mar 23, 2016, 10:49 am

After the Paris Agreement, Pope Francis exhorted the entire international community “to promptly continue the path taken, as a sign of solidarity which becomes ever more active.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-urges-action-after-paris-cli...

Science-based analyses and projections are ever-more dire (inundation, storms, extinctions, sooner rather than later), yet climate is barely mentioned thus far by wouldbe leaders in the US at least, e.g. Trump quotes follow that of scientists writing in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals..

********************************************
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming could be dangerous
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

6.9. Practical Implications. ...First, our conclusions suggest that a target of limiting
global warming to 2C, which has sometimes been discussed, does not provide safety. ...Second, our study suggests that global surface air temperature, although an important diagnostic, is a flawed metric of planetary “health”, because faster ice melt has a cooling
effect for a substantial period. ...Third, not only do we see evidence of changes beginning
to happen in the climate system, as discussed above, but we have also associated these changes with amplifying feedback processes. ...We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical.


Or as Christian Science Monitor puts it:
Superstorms and rising seas: Is James Hansen a climate oracle?
In a 52-page paper published Tuesday, 19 climate scientists say rising seas and superstorms will change our Earth in decades, not centuries.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0323/Superstorms-and-rising-seas-Is-Ja...

********************************************

Risk of multiple interacting tipping points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2964.html

Abstract. Evidence suggests that several elements of the climate system could be tipped into a different state by global warming, causing irreversible economic damages.

... Here we show that combining realistic assumptions about policymakers’ preferences under uncertainty, with the prospect of multiple future interacting climate tipping points, increases the present social cost of carbon in the model nearly eightfold from US$15 per tCO2 to US$116 per tCO2.

Furthermore, passing some tipping points increases the likelihood of other tipping points occurring to such an extent that it abruptly increases the social cost of carbon.

The corresponding optimal policy involves an immediate, massive effort to control CO2 emissions, which are stopped by mid-century, leading to climate stabilization at less than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.


******************************************

Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

Abstract. ...We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM. (PETM = Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum)

Or, as National Geographic put it:
Earth Hasn’t Heated Up This Fast Since the Dinosaurs’ End
People are sending carbon into the atmosphere ten times faster than during the hottest period in the past 66 million years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160321-climate-change-petm-global-war...

******************************************
Donald Trump: I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes — if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not — I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room — but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/03/22/donald-tr...

...The Trump campaign's website suggests southwest Virginia has absorbed "the brunt of the failed and misguided government policies for years," accusing Obama of waging an "outright war on coal that has uprooted and destroyed families and entire communities."...
http://www.rferl.org/content/us-election-trump-virginia-coal/27616741.html

Trump promises comeback for Kentucky coal industry. ...the billionaire businessman criticized President Barack Obama for having “decimated” the coal industry. Trump drew cheers by saying he loves “clean coal.”...
http://www.wtvq.com/2016/03/01/trump-promises-comeback-for-kentucky-coal-industr...

319margd
Avr 19, 2016, 8:08 am

"Aggressive, global action" is needed to stop greenhouse gas from worsening and to avoid the devastating effects of climate change (on human health), according to the American College of Physicians (ACP)... http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/57419

**********************************************

Ryan A. Crowley, BSJ, for the Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. 19 April 2016. Climate Change and Health: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. Published online 19 April 2016 doi:10.7326/M15-2766. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2513976

Climate change could have a devastating effect on human and environmental health. Potential effects of climate change on human health include higher rates of respiratory and heat-related illness, increased prevalence of vector-borne and waterborne diseases, food and water insecurity, and malnutrition. Persons who are elderly, sick, or poor are especially vulnerable to these potential consequences. Addressing climate change could have substantial benefits to human health. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) recommends that physicians and the broader health care community throughout the world engage in environmentally sustainable practices that reduce carbon emissions; support efforts to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change; and educate the public, their colleagues, their community, and lawmakers about the health risks posed by climate change. Tackling climate change is an opportunity to dramatically improve human health and avert dire environmental outcomes, and ACP believes that physicians can play a role in achieving this goal.

320rrp
Avr 26, 2016, 7:36 pm

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the causes of the earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for human caused global warming.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/17/the-paradox-of-the-climate-change-consensus/

What sort of climate change thinker are you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/the-classifications-of-cl_b_9729598.html

321margd
Mai 2, 2016, 6:54 am

Workers face 'epidemic of heat-related injuries' due to climate change

Major UN report warns heat stress suffered by factory and field workers will devastate health and reduce productivity

...The worst-affected areas in the century ahead will likely include countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and Burkina Faso which had already lost 2-3% of their available daylight work hours by the mid-1990s due to heat extremes.

Even if the Paris agreement succeeds in limiting global warming to 2C, 10-15% of daylight work hours will be lost in vulnerable countries by the century’s end, says the study which bases its estimates on theUN climate science panel’s latest findings.
Advertisement

“Limiting warming to 1.5Cas enshrined in the UNFCCC Paris agreement would still result in a substantial escalation of risks but increases the viability of adaptation measures and contains the worst impacts in health, economic and social terms,” the report says.

The paper calls for low-cost measures such as guaranteed access to drinking water in workplaces, frequent rest breaks, management of output targets, and a protection of employee’s incomes and conditions.

However, more labour disputes to protect vulnerable workers - and apply the ILO’s guidelines on climate change – are all but inevitable as the century advances, according to the ILO.

Moustapha Kamal Gueye, an ILO spokesman, said: “Climate change is going to be a major issue for unions in the years ahead. It is a significant problem already and workers and unions are far ahead of governments and employers when it comes to putting on pressure about the urgency to take action.”


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/28/workers-epidemic-heat-related...

322margd
Modifié : Mai 14, 2016, 8:01 am

As Fort McMurray burns and 80,000 people evacuated (safely, thank goodness):

A Cdn fire-fighting helicopter is headed home from Australia. Apparently, British Columbia, Alberta, and Australia have agreements to help each other fight bushfires--usually occurring in opposite seasons--but climate change is pushing N and S hemisphere's fire seasons closer together...
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/australia-and-canadas-wildfire-season-overlap-is-...

Climate Council of Australia. 2015. THE BURNING ISSUE: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRE THREAT (40 p) https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/df9df4b05bc1673ace5142c3445149a4.pdf

Key Findings

...Record-breaking spring temperatures in 2015, exacerbated by climate change, have driven an early start to the bushfire season in Australia.

...North America has faced a deadly bushfire season in 2015.

...Australia’s bushfire preparedness is at risk from climate change as bushfire seasons increasingly lengthen and overlap with fire seasons in the Northern Hemisphere.

...Stronger climate change action is needed to reduce bushfire risk.


****************************************************

M Flannigan et al. 2008. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(5):483-507 · December 2008.  DOI: 10.1071/WF08187
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236246525_Implications_of_changing_clim...

Abstract. ...Fire seasons are lengthening for temperate and boreal regions and this trend should continue in a warmer world...

*****************************************************

Previously discussed paper (in Science?) predicts that boreal forests are at a tipping point, with shift to savannah conditions. Less carbon will be sequestered.

*****************************************************

ETA: Interactive website predicts climate change effects in Canada's prairie provinces: hotter, wetter (esp in spring = flooding), more extreme (storms, droughts), etc. I lived in s Manitoba as young teen, when it felt like we had 2 months hot and dry, the rest cold and dry--but always WINDY. The military base was surrounded by a firebreak, which saved us more than once, and sounds like will be even more needed in future. Significant change in Cdn prairies seem to have pluses and minuses, but have me wondering what dust bowl conditions are in store for US to the south. Collectively, this is bread basket of North America! http://www.climateatlas.ca/home.html

323rrp
Modifié : Mai 8, 2016, 10:50 pm

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-censorship/

Free speech matters.

Look what happened to "Professor Pielke \who\ had argued with impeccably detailed evidence that, although he was no sceptic, “the increased cost of natural disasters is not the result of climate change”."

324rrp
Mai 8, 2016, 10:52 pm

Is anyone allowed to question the evidence anymore?

325margd
Mai 11, 2016, 8:16 am

Thailand and India suffer record-breaking temperatures in April 2016:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87981

...Much of India is reeling under a weeks-long heat wave and severe drought conditions that have decimated crops, killed livestock and left at least 330 million Indians without enough water for their daily needs.

Rivers, lakes and dams have dried up in parts of the western states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, and overall officials say that groundwater reservoirs are at just 22 percent capacity.

In some areas, the situation is so bad the government has sent tankers of water for emergency relief. Monsoon rains are still weeks away, expected to start only in June.

At least 300 people have died of heat-related illness this month, including 110 in the state of Orissa, 137 in Telangana and another 45 in Andhra Pradesh where temperatures since the start of April have been hovering around 44 degrees Celsius (111 Fahrenheit).

That's about 4-5 degrees Celsius (8-10 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than normal for April, according to state meteorological official Y.K. Reddy. He predicted the situation would only get worse in May, traditionally the hottest month in India...


http://www.indiawest.com/news/india/india-bans-daytime-cooking-in-some-cities-as...

326rrp
Mai 11, 2016, 8:32 pm

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-04-poor-policies-blamed-india-reels.html

"The vast Indian hinterland has long faced water shortages, especially in the torrid months from April to June, before the annual monsoon rains bring some relief. The showers, which normally run from June to September, are crucial in a country where 60 percent of the 1.25 billion population works in agriculture and less than half the farmland is irrigated. But decades of groundwater abuse, flawed water policies and poor monsoons have turned large parts of central India into an arid dust bowl."

...

"India's meteorological department has said this year's monsoon rains could be above average, as El Nino—a warming of the eastern Pacific Ocean that leads to dry spells in South Asia—was receding."

327rrp
Modifié : Mai 11, 2016, 8:49 pm


Headlines 'exaggerated' climate link to sinking of Pacific islands.
Report’s author says many media outlets have misinterpreted the science by conflating sea-level rise with climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate...