Slashdot Mirror
Pope Francis To Issue Encyclical On Global Warming
HughPickens.com writes The Guardian reports that following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, Pope Francis plans to publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds. "A papal encyclical is rare," says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences who revealed the pope's plans when he delivered Cafod's annual Pope Paul VI lecture. "It is among the highest levels of a pope's authority. It will be 50 to 60 pages long; it's a big deal." The encyclical will be sent to the world's 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners. Within Catholicism in recent times, an encyclical is generally used for significant issues, and is second in importance only to the highest ranking document now issued by popes, an Apostolic Constitution. "Just as humanity confronted revolutionary change in the 19th century at the time of industrialization, today we have changed the natural environment so much," says Sorondo. "If current trends continue, the century will witness unprecedented climate change and destruction of the ecosystem with tragic consequences."
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. "There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be "un-biblical" and a false religion. "The pope should back off," says Beisner. "The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. "There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be "un-biblical" and a false religion. "The pope should back off," says Beisner. "The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."
Apparently listening to the world's scientists and acknowledging reality is now a "radical position".
Pretending that all is well with the climate, and that our only problem is that our entire scientific community is delusional, OTOH -- that's the reasonable and moderate position.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
You liked the Popes that hushed up rampant pedophilia and hobnobbing with the powerful and rich?
What ever floats your ark.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ha, haha, hahahaha.
Well this atheist wishes you both irrelevance, though if he's going to be relevant I'd prefer his brand.
On a side note why is it whenever I read posts like the above, when I click on them, I can be absolutely certain the poster is none other than Mr AC.
As an atheist, I have to say that I respect this Pope for trying to drag the church, with many kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
And not just the church - look what he did to help the US and Cuba. A year ago that wasn't even on the radar.
I wonder what else he has up his sleeve.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
-1 Downvote for quoting the Daily Mail on anything.
"his ridiculus support for evolution"
Um, every pope for eighty years has supported evolution. The catholic church has been officially supportive of evolution since the 1950 encyclical.
I know of them! I've been annoyed reading of them before. It's a conservative organisation that is defined as the exact opposite of the environmental movement. It is their belief that natural resources were created by God, for Man - and thus it is not only mankind's right to exploit them, but a divine duty to do so. They also reject the possibility of climate change on the grounds that God wouldn't create a world so fragile that humans could break it*, and regard the free market as the solution to pretty much everything. Their approach is that no-one would willingly damage land they personally own, so if all land is in private hands then it will be safe from environmental destruction.
Their main rhetorical device is to frame things as helping the poor. For example, on climate change, they'll point out that emisions reductions have a considerable economic cost, especially in developing countries - cheap energy is the great driver of economic growth and advancement. Therefore emissions reductions efforts frustrate the growth that would otherwise lift people and whole countries out of poverty. Throw in a picture of some starving children in Africa, and it turns into a story about how stupid liberals are killing children by denying them access to the wealth of oil and industrial agriculture. It's effective because it's arguably true to some extent - and it would be a perfectly valid argument, if they weren't ruling out any possibility of climate change causing far worse problems on grounds, not of scientific reasoning, but of theology: God wouldn't let that happen.
*According to their own website: "As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. Although Earth and its subsystems, including the climate system, are susceptible to some damage by ignorant or malicious human action, God’s wise design and faithful sustaining make these natural systems more likely—as confirmed by widespread scientific observation—to respond in ways that suppress and correct that damage than magnify it catastrophically."
Idiot. Pope Frank doesn't represent you. He represent GOD. You think Catholicism is a democracy?
While I admire many of Francis actions, he was not the first Pope to respect evolution. That honor goes to Pius XII, which is surprising considering most Popes named Pius were complete bastards who should not have been allowed to live much less given any authority. The Vatican accepts both "God made Man with magic" and "God used evolution to create Man" as valid possibilities. They do not say it was evolution, just that God can use whatever tool he damn well pleases because he's God for fucks sake.
Good job on being more conservative than the Vatican of half a century ago. It takes a lot of brain-damage to accomplish that feat.
You do know that there's PLENTY of scientific evidence out there which ISN'T funded by big oil refuting the ridiculous notion that carbon-dioxide is pollution?
What I particularly liked about your post is the large number of sources you included to support the above statement.
First of all, "scientific evidence" doesn't show whether or not something is or is not "pollution". "Pollution" is a term of judgement.
The science shows that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can change the climate. There are not "PLENTY" of scientists who disagree with that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...boggles the mind. I mean, this is a tech website, you'd expect people here to be on average more intelligent or at least to have a better scientific culture than the average. And yet, whenever there's an article about climate change, there's always a bunch of morons spouting completely ignorant statements defeated by 10 seconds of googling. Where do all these people come from?
Someone has to look out for the Christians of the world.
Hint: Jesus was against Pharisees and Money Lenders. If you think he said for you to get rich and destroy the world, you're reading the wrong bible.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Kirribati Islands. The water supply is already compromised by sea water, they are in the process of moving the population to Fiji. http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
So what you're saying is "because lots of the power we have available now is produced by burning coal, we shouldn't try to produce power in the future by doing something else"?
I mean, of course the wind turbines get produced by burning coal - that's so that future wind turbines will be produced by drawing electricity from a grid powered by wind turbines (and tidal power stations, and hydro plants, and solar plants, and nuclear, and ...)
I remain mystified by how such a sane and decent person has risen so high within a large institution.
Have you heard of this guy Paul who wrote most of the new testament? He said: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."" (Galatians 5:14)
Some of your neighbors are gay. Paul ordered you to treat *all* your neighbors with love, and so did Jesus. Pope Francis is just following orders. If the Bible is your authority on truth, you should too.
Conservative Christians/Catholics grossly misunderstand their Biblical history. Compared to the conservative Jewish tradition of his day, Jesus was a FLAMING liberal. Eating with sinners and tax collectors! Breaking the law when it doesn't make sense! Forgiving sinners that were caught red-handed! These are part of why everyone was so pissed off at him: he was too liberal.
Conservative Christianity has been infected by hatred, judgmentalism, self-righteous pride, and disgusting selfishness. And you, Mr AC, are a fine example of exactly this.
You seriously need to have a heart-to-heart with your God before it is too late.
>. Coal is one of the most dense and cheapest forms of energy on the planet, so it involves much less harm to the environment
Well, except for the fact that it's the #1 source of radioactive pollution, hideously toxic and unregulated under grandfathered environmental exemptions, and the undisputed #1 source of CO2 per watt: which at current rates of usage increase will almost certainly rapidly alter planetary temperatures to something resembling the Cambrian Period in only a few centuries, devastating virtually all existing ecosystems in the process.
I agree invoking "biomass" is not a magic bullet - but done intelligently you can efficiently convert farm waste, etc. to energy, and even optionally produce biochar (at a loss of energy) - an extremely old and ecologically beneficial form of carbon sequestration.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You hypocrites are always making fun of religion, and calling catholics pedophiles and faggots.
That's bullshit and you know it ...
We would never call catholics 'faggots'.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles...
Isn't it strange that accepting what for all practical purposes must be called the scientific consensus is described as 'radical'? And stop calling deniers 'conservative' - a conservative is somebody who, after giving the matter some thought, feels that the old ways are best - whereas the deniers are people that refuse to apply their intellect at all, if there is a risk they might have to change their minds. I have a lot of respect for conservatives; rather less for deniers.
We've already heard from some preposterous stuff from deep-green environmentalists (aka back to the wonderful Stone Age world of peace with Mother Earth) that AGW is a moral imperative, and sure enough, religious people are trying to join as well.
Straw man. The Pope and the mainstream environmental movements are not arguing for that, so using it to criticise him is not a valid argument.
I am old enough to mistrust any politician or religionist who talks about anything as a "moral imperative" because it usually implies mob justice and the crushing of civil liberties. Look at the history of the World. Look at ISIS right now whose highest priority is the moral imperative of submission to Islam. Tell me I'm wrong.
Wow, you really like these straw men, huh. When I think of moral imperatives, I think of things like equal rights for black people and the end of slavery, equality for homosexuals, not polluting the world or hunting species into extinction, that sort of thing. ISIS isn't really representative of the Pope's views or what he means by "moral imperative", so I'm happy to say you are wrong.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC