Update 10/5/2023 11:15 pm CDT: The Pillar reports that Francis (and/or his ghostwriter(s)) allegedly bypassed his own Secretariat of State in writing this policy-heavy document. It also reproduces some graphs which call into question the exhortation's claims about the United States' Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. More about this latter point at the bottom of the post.
Update 10/5/2023 5:19 pm CDT: for a more in-depth discussion of Laudate Deum than I provided, supported by quotes and nuggets from the new exhortation, please see Vincent J. Miller's article at the America website.
-----
Today, Pope Francis released the Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum, ("Praise God") addressed to "all people of good will on the climate crisis". I read it today; unlike some of Francis's major writings, this one is brief enough to read in a single sitting. I don't have time at present to cite many passages. But I'll offer here some summary points as well as a few comments and, at the end of this post, a brief critique and suggestion. And I would urge everyone to click on the link above and read through it.
This new exhortation is positioned as a follow-on document to his much longer encyclical Laudato Si’ from 2015, in which he urged all of humanity to take seriously our failures to care for our common home the earth, and sought to get to the root causes of our ecological and climate failures by showing that environmental ecology is profoundly related to human and social ecology.
This new document is less theological and more practical than its predecessor. It seeks to assess our progress on the issue of climate change over the last eight years. The assessment is not positive. This probably is the "darkest" document Francis has promulgated.
His message is simple and unsparing: we're not taking the problem of climate change seriously enough; we're not acting with sufficient urgency and boldness; the mechanisms we have created to take action, monitor adherence to promises, and hold signatories to international agreements accountable are not working. We already have let the clock tick too long, and the best we can do now is to act urgently to try to mitigate the magnitude of the suffering that is certain to come. This document is Francis in his most Jeremiah-like prophetic vein.
Characteristically, he shows no patience with those who deny the reality of climate change or who have latched on to the small minority of climate scientists who are skeptical of human causes of the problem.
Throughout the document, he doesn't hesitate to get specific and name names, if not of individual people, then of organizations and events. He provides a thumbs-up/thumbs-down assessment of each of the various climate conferences. And in what may be an inflection point for the Holy See, he flat-out states that the United Nations has not proven to be effective.
He is sharply critical of what he calls the "technocratic paradigm", which he describes as the dominant view among the elites who rule and shape our world, and which he sees as privileging technological progress and economic growth over genuine human progress. He skewers what he sees as the technocratic regime's ideology of golly-gee, we-humans-can-accomplish-anything-through-the-wonders-of-technology. As an antidote, he urges humanity to adopt a humbler stance, acknowledging our sinfulness, and working to live more in communion with nature.
In what is certain to be a controversial passage, he singles out the United States as needing to reform, citing evidence that our per-capita carbon output is substantially higher than that of China and a multiple of the developing world's. He calls for "broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model". Intentionally or not, the effect of criticizing only us is to imply that the US is the chief culprit of the problem, which surely is not entirely fair. And Francis's American critics are sure to cite this passage as evidence that he really, really dislikes the United States.
These plain-spoken and hard words from a public figure of his stature are dramatic, and perhaps they will trigger a change of heart in many people. Still, I will offer one humble critique and suggestion. The critique is that his remedies don't strike me as very inspirational, and may not be actionable by us humble people of good will who don't control the levers of power. Reconfiguring multilateralism, holding nations accountable, and weaning ourselves away from fossil fuels: these aren't original insights, although perhaps hearing them from the Supreme Pontiff will catch the attention of people who thus far have tuned out these recommendations from others. And undoubtedly there is room for improvement in these areas. But it isn't clear to this person of good will how these things are to be brought about.
Here is my suggestion: given that mission is one of the themes of the synod now underway (“For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission”), I would like to see Francis call all persons of good will to mission - that is, to embrace the person of Jesus and follow him; cast off the accoutrements of the kingdom of earth; and live as citizens of the kingdom of heaven. Propose new and more responsible ways of living our lives as a part of the total and radical commitment of discipleship as an alternative lifestyle to the materialism and consumerism that mark the way many of us live.
I don't think we humans in our natural, fallen state care sufficiently about one another to be willing to make the necessary changes in our personal lives and social order to slow down the pace of climate change. Transformations of that magnitude depend upon a radical makeover of our innermost selves - which is what comes of embracing Jesus in our lives.
Continuation of 10/5/2023 11:15 update: The Pillar article mentioned in the top portion of this post reproduces two graphs from a UN report referenced by Francis in his remarks about the United States' contribution to climate change. What follows is my analysis and conclusions, in Q&A format.
Q: What did Francis write in Laudate Deum about the United States' emissions?
A: Paragraph 72 states this: "... emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries".
Q: What is Francis's source for this assertion?
A: The assertion references footnote 44 in the document, which is as follows:
Cf. UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM, The Emissions Gap Report 2022: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022.
Q: What does the UN Emissions Gap Report 2022 say about Green House Gas (GHG) emissions?
A: The report includes the following two graphs, which were reproduced in The Pillar article:
Q: What is the difference between total emissions and per capita emissions?
A: Total emissions is the total quantity of a particular country's GHG emitted into the atmosphere. Per capita emissions is a country's total emissions of GHG divided by the country's population.
Q: What do the two graphs show?
A: According to the first chart, China, by a significant margin, is the biggest emitter of these harmful substances into the environment. That graph shows that China emits roughly twice the GHG that the United States does.
So if the relevant metric the total quantity of harmful substances being emitted (and we should be concerned about that metric), then China is the biggest offender - by a substantial margin.
But the second chart shows that the United States emits more harmful substances per person.
It may be helpful to consider some other numbers when comparing the US and China:
- Economy comparison: The United States has a larger economy than China's ($23.32 billion GDP for the US vs. $17.73 billion GDP for China in 2021, roughly a 30% difference); yet the US's GHG emissions were only half of China's. Thus, measured by total economic activity, the United States appears to be doing considerably better than China in total GHG emissions: the US has a significantly bigger economy but emits significantly less GHG.
- Population comparison: China's population is much, much larger than the US's population (1.4 billion people in China vs. 332 million people in the US 2021, thus China's population is over three times that of the US).
Q: Why is the quantity of harmful substances emitted per person (per capita) an important consideration?
A: The per capita emissions are important if personal activity contributes to GHG emissions. For example: this federal government report indicates that the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States is transportation-related activity (such as driving internal combustion engine cars).
It seems reasonable to conclude that there is a strong positive correlation between individuals and transportation activity: the more people, the greater the need for transportation. Any family with children understands this; the more kids in the family, the more driving the parents need to do to drop off and pick up the kids. On the other hand, the correlation between the number of people and electrical generation and industrial activity may not be as direct, as some industrial output is exported, and non-consumer entities such as industrial firms are big consumers of electricity. Still, there would seem to be some correlation between GHG generation and population: as the American population grows and creates more consumers, industrial output and electric output would be expected to increase.
To put it plainly: there seems to be something about the US lifestyle that results in more GHG emissions per person than the Chinese lifestyle. The simplest explanation is the US is more prosperous than China. If we own more cars per person, live in bigger homes per person, and use more electronic devices per person than people in China; and if we buy and consume more stuff per person, which requires more manufacturing and transportation of the stuff we buy; then we Americans are generating more GHG per person than China.
That is what Francis is asking us to reform. Can we live with fewer cars, smaller homes and less stuff? Well, we probably could; but not many Americans are going to want to.
Wonderful literary inclusio :
ReplyDeleteHe begins by quoting the American bishops on climate change, even before the Amazon and African bishops, the very first quote of the entire document:
the Bishops of the United States have expressed very well this social meaning of our concern about climate change, which goes beyond a merely ecological approach, because “our care for one another and our care for the earth are intimately bound together. Climate change is one of the principal challenges facing society and the global community. The effects of climate change are borne by the most vulnerable people, whether at home or around the world”. [1]
He ends with
72. If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries, [44] we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.
We have assembled in the Synod both the conservative and liberal leaders of the American Bishops with the leadership of the Church from around the world, and an Ecumenical Leadership from around the world.
Isn’t It time not just for Francis but the Synod to place all Catholics in the leadership on climate change, and for American bishops to take the lead.
What if the story coming out of the Synod was “American Bishops united on climate change” with press conferences featuring them pledging to unite the American Church around this issue.
Certainly this issue, including fasting on an individual level from animal protein and many of the goods that raise emissions per individual, could be well integrated with Eucharistic renewal and with being pro-life in the broadest sense of that position. Francis himself quotes the American bishops that this is a social as well as an environmental issue.
I agree with Jim that Catholics at a personal level need to be able to do something even if it seems like a drop in the bucket. (However, I think I’ve seen calculations that restoring the Friday fast year around would actually produce significant effects given the contribution of cattle to methane gases.) Symbolically it would give a message to the economy that Catholics are behind the environmental movement in a very practical way that suggest they need to rethink the products they are selling.
Maybe the Holy Spirit will be at work in the Synod! with a little nudge from Francis and the cooperation of the American bishops.
I've suggested once or twice to small groups from our parish that the parish become more intentional about the issue. But I've received literally no affirmation or encouragement. And our parish isn't a conservative redoubt; in the spectrum of Catholic parishes, we're pretty moderate. I just don't think the issue has sunk in for huge swaths of Americans, especially us grey and greying Americans. For my kids' generation, it's a major issue.
DeleteJack, as you note: relatively small things can make a difference. And I'm pretty confident that if the parish tried to become more green in its operations, such as finding ways to consume renewable energy, it would amount to a cost savings over time.
Francis gives me encouragement to try harder at the parish. So I will!
I also was struck by Francis's praise of the American bishops. It was a nice little grace note at the top of this tell-it-like-it-is document.
DeleteAnd I confess, I wasn't aware that the American bishops had said much of anything about climate change. If/when I can find time, I'll poke around on the USCCB website to try to find the statement Francis is referring to.
There is a related article today about Bill Gates efforts to recruit Republican leaders to the climate change issue:
ReplyDeleteAccording to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, as reported by CNBC, 78% of Democrats view global warming as a "major threat," in stark contrast to only 23% of Republicans who share the same perspective.
A recent poll from 2023 conducted by the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago has revealed that 27% of Republicans have exhibited heightened concerns about global warming over the past year. This statistic offers encouragement for Gates in pursuit of his mission.
Certainly, the American Bishops have the ability to reach Catholics who are Republicans.
I think this issue is generational: the older generations, on the whole, can't be bothered about the future. For the younger generations, they get it, and understand they have a personal stake in it. So as time passes and one generation replaces another, we may see Republicans naturally moving toward a more sensible position. In addition, not all Republicans are from the Bible Belt. Suburban Republicans tend to be more moderate and more educated than the Trump, populist wing that is now in the driver's seat in the GOP. The suburbanite conservatives are more amenable to science and reason.
DeleteFirst, thank you, Jim, for the link. As someone who has been following this topic for forty years almost as an amateur climatologist, I found this to be an eloquent, compact and comprehensive presentation of the climate change problem, its effects and its causes, economic, sociological and spiritual. Realclimate.org is a website for some of the leading scientists in the field. They often critique and grade the commentaries by non-scientists. Gore got a B. I hope they do the same for Francis. I would give him an A+. His evaluation of the success or lack thereof of the governments and institutions in addressing climate change is accurate. To avoid the worst of this catastrophe will require the moral equivalent of war. And a spiritual reorientation of everyone. No amount of technofix bandaids will solve this. This starts in our spiritual core. Thank you, Francis.
ReplyDelete"I don't think we humans in our natural, fallen state care sufficiently about one another to be willing to make the necessary changes in our personal lives and social order to slow down the pace of climate change. Transformations of that magnitude depend upon a radical makeover of our innermost selves - which is what comes of embracing Jesus in our lives."
ReplyDeleteIf you read a lot of dystopian literature like I do, it's clear that environmental disaster is seen in terms of class and resource exploitation, and the rise of market manipulation and messaging by mega-corporations.
Those analyses don't usually appeal to conservatives who don't want to fetter the free market with regulation. So if Jim's "fallen-state" take will get conservatives on board with climate change realities, more power to it.
I do fear that because Francis is pushing it, conservative Catholics will just reject global warming relief efforts as a distraction from the "real" evils of abortion and gays.
I do agree that this issue is not high on Baby Boomers' concerns. Maybe some of this is the dope talking, but as my slow fade-out progresses, it is hard for me to get het up about climate change, overhaul of Social Security and Medicare, cancer research, or the extended warranties on my appliances. I will not have to live in that world, and outside of voting, writing letters, recycling, and shopping local, what can I do?
Or, for that matter, what can a parish do?
Last weekend I visited the Hancock Shaker Farm near Pittsfield, MA. The rain shortened my visit but what a beautiful confluence of religious faith, artful technology, simple living and just plain peacefulness. Why can't we do some version of that again? Live a life to show how it can be done. Could some parishes evolve into that? Could there be a Church movement? Otherwise, Catholicism just becomes a post it note with a crucifix stuck on the backside of the elephantine capitalist beast.
DeleteStanley, I guess some Catholic Worker farms are trying to achieve this. Raber gets CW newspaper and literature. I don't sense that the CW Movement is very mainstream, though.
DeleteThanks, Jean. I should look into this. Not sure I have the courage but I think it's the way to go. I can't help but think that all our lives with all their various troubles wouldn't be better in such an environment.
DeleteOne of the helpful things in Francis's document is that even small things matter when done by individuals. I don't think it's realistic for many of us to live on Shaker-style farms (goodness knows, I'd make a pretty bad farmer). But all of us can simplify our lives and try to "go green". If I remember to bring the reusable shopping bags on my weekly trip to the grocery store - that's an infinitesimally small victory, but it's still a victory. If nothing else, it reminds me to orient myself in this direction - and that's something.
DeleteMy wife and I have been trying to get by with one vehicle. I know that doesn't exactly sound like a sacrifice that cuts to the bone, but people look at us like we're nuts, or perhaps privately wonder what financial calamity befell us. In truth, we're just trying to simplify. And it really is a sacrifice; to the extent that suburbia is planned, it is with the expectation that every single adult has her/his own vehicle. Walking, riding a bicycle or taking a bus isn't realistic for people who need to live around here every day.
Meant to add to my previous comment: we need to focus both on the large and the small; the macro and the micro. Francis's letter focuses mostly on the macro (multilateral agreements, et al), and obviously he believes that it is only at that massive scale that we have a prayer of doing what must be done. Most of us live very "micro" lives, and so I'm grateful that he called out that our micro acts have value.
DeleteWe might think of it as a Little Way spirituality.
Helping the environment often boils down to "giving up" or "making do" or "cutting back" even among people who believe they should do something about global warming. Sounds like never-ending denial and joylessness to a lot of people.
DeleteI suppose clergy could recast these efforts in terms of "making room" for more spiritual activities, especially during Lent and Advent when people want to feel holy.
But, as Jim notes, make too many changes and people will think you are hard-up or weird and start commenting on it.
The American Bishops have a statement on their website from way back in 2001, informed mostly by the teaching of JP2:
ReplyDeleteGlobal Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue Prudence and the Common Good
https://www.usccb.org/resources/global-climate-change-plea-dialogue-prudence-and-common-good
A Statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
June 15, 2001
The text for Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good originated from the Domestic and International Policy Committees and was prepared in consultation with the bishops' Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Science and Human Values. The document was approved for publication by the full body of United States Catholic bishops at their June 2001 General Meeting.
" Prudence is not, as popularly thought, simply a cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good."
The bishops then make it clear that the state of the evidence in 2001 was such that it was more prudent to do something rather than do nothing.
"We believe economic freedom, initiative, and creativity are essential to help our nation find effective ways to address climate change."
"True stewardship requires changes in human actions—both in moral behavior and technical advancement. Our religious tradition has always urged restraint and moderation in the use of material goods, so we must not allow our desire to possess more material things to overtake our concern for the basic needs of people and the environment."
"Changes in lifestyle based on traditional moral virtues can ease the way to a sustainable and equitable world economy in which sacrifice will no longer be an unpopular concept. For many of us, a life less focused on material gain may remind us that we are more than what we have. Rejecting the false promises of excessive or conspicuous consumption can even allow more time for family, friends, and civic responsibilities. A renewed sense of sacrifice and restraint could make an essential contribution to addressing global climate change."
"The global climate change debate cannot become just another opportunity for some groups—usually affluent advocates from the developed nations—to blame the problem on population growth in poor countries. Historically, the industrialized countries have emitted more greenhouse gases that warm the climate than have the developing countries. Affluent nations such as our own have to acknowledge the impact of voracious consumerism instead of simply calling for population and emissions controls from people in poorer nations."
"A more responsible approach to population issues is the promotion of "authentic development," which represents a balanced view of human progress and includes respect for nature and social well-being. 8 Development policies that seek to reduce poverty with an emphasis on improved education and social conditions for women are far more effective than usual population reduction programs and far more respectful of women's dignity."
Clearly the bishops linked climate change to population control since they fear that population growth in the less developed world would be used as an excuse for birth control and abortion. It is interesting that they supported education and the advancement of women as a better means of population control.
DeleteJack, thanks for that. In addition, I was able to locate this 2019 document which seems to be the one Francis referenced and quoted from. It's a nice effort in that it applies some of the principles from Laudato Si' to the situation in the United States.
Deletehttps://www.usccb.org/resources/global-climate-change-background
"Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day."
--Pope Francis, Laudato SÃ, June 18 2015
BACKGROUND
In his wide-ranging encyclical on human and natural ecology, Laudato SÃ, Pope Francis calls on and challenges all people to protect creation and our common home. The Pope makes clear that our care for one another and our care for the earth are intimately bound together. Climate change is one of the principal challenges facing society and the global community. The effects of climate change are borne by the most vulnerable people, whether at home or around the world. The Catholic Church brings a distinct perspective to the debate about climate change by lifting up the moral dimensions of this issue and the needs of the most vulnerable among us. As Catholics our faith calls us to care for all of God's creation, especially the 'least of these' (Mt 25:40).
Greenhouse gases are a major contributor to climate change. Many experts have determined that current and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and the welfare of future generations. Power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon pollution in the United States: about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. comes from the generation of electricity by power plants.
On August 3, the EPA, as directed by the president, finalized the first national standards to reduce carbon pollution from currently operating power plants. These standards create a federal-state partnership, with the EPA setting state goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and states deciding how best to meet these goals. Nationwide, by 2030, these standards will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 32 percent.
In the United States, power plants have often been located near low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Air pollution from these plants contributes to health problems, especially in the young and the elderly. These standards would significantly reduce carbon pollution from power plants; they would also reduce particle pollution, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to important human and environmental health problems.
Around the world, these effects are even more severe. Catholic Relief Services is helping the most vulnerable people respond to increasing floods, droughts, food and water insecurity, and conflict over declining resources. All these are making the lives of the world's poorest people even more precarious. These standards are a vital first step to protecting the world's most vulnerable people and allow the United States to exercise critical leadership necessary for achieving and implementing a global agreement.
Pope Francis has long raised the moral imperative to reach an agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris that addresses the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change and protects poor and vulnerable peoples and nations. In his Sunday, December 13 Angelus address, Pope Francis commended world leaders for reaching a historic agreement at the Paris climate talks, urging that its "implementation will require a concerted commitment and generous dedication by all", and reiterating that it must give "special attention to the most vulnerable populations."
(Cont. in next comment)
(Continuation of the 2019 USCCB background doc on climate change):
DeleteUSCCB POSITION
The U.S. bishops promote prudent action predicated on justice to address the growing impact of global climate change. As the bishops note in Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, "Action to mitigate global climate change must be built upon a foundation of social and economic justice."
National standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants represent an important opportunity to protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly and poor and vulnerable communities. In testimony offered on November 18, 2015 at an EPA public hearing, Archbishop Thomas Wenski and Bishop Oscar Cantú, Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, respectively, expressed support for a national standard to reduce carbon pollution and offered moral principles to guide the EPA and states as they take steps to reduce carbon pollution. These principles include: care for creation, promotion of the common good, respect for the human person, and a priority for those who are poor and vulnerable. In particular, the bishops urged that as these standards are implemented, workers negatively impacted should be assisted, and any increased utility costs should be distributed fairly, without undue burden on the poor. The bishops also recognized the important flexibility given to states in determining how best to meet the emissions goals set by the EPA.
The bishops also support the international Green Climate Fund that will help developing nations shift towards a low-emission and climate resilient development, and help them adapt to the impacts of climate change. As Pope Francis wrote: Poor developing nations "require the help of countries which have experienced great growth at the cost of the ongoing pollution of the planet" (172).
The EPA carbon standards and U.S. support for the Green Climate Fund demonstrate critical U.S. leadership and commitment that were essential to securing a successful outcome at the UN Climate Change negotiations in Paris and will be critical for ensuring its effective implementation.
ACTION
Multiple efforts are anticipated in Congress to block the EPA from developing and implementing carbon pollution standards. As Archbishop Wenski urged in his June 24 letter to Congress, ask government leaders to:
"[O]ppose legislation and appropriations riders designed to reverse efforts to implement a national standard to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants."
The United States has a moral responsibility to lead the world's efforts to ensure that people in developing countries can build a path toward sustainable development, protecting themselves from climate change (adaptation) and adopting alternative sources of clean energy (mitigation) while continuing to grow their economies and reduce poverty:
Provide new U.S. funding for the Green Climate Fund that will help poor and vulnerable people in developing countries to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Jim, thanks for providing the link to the document, and the commentary.
ReplyDeleteI found paragraphs 64 and 65 touching and lovely:
"Jesus was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world because he himself was in constant touch with nature, lending it an attraction full of fondness and wonder. As he made his way throughout the land, he often stopped to contemplate the beauty sown by his Father, and invited his disciples to perceive a divine message in things”. [38]
65. Hence, “the creatures of this world no longer appear to us under merely natural guise, because the risen One is mysteriously holding them to himself and directing them towards fullness as their end. The very flowers of the field and the birds which his human eyes contemplated and admired are now imbued with his radiant presence”. [39] If “the universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely… there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face”. [40] The world sings of an infinite Love: how can we fail to care for it?"
I'll be back later with some thoughts that are a little darker, because it is a dark situation. But I thought these paragraphs emphasized God's love for creation.
This is the dark part: Jim said above that he didn't think humans cared sufficiently about one another in their fallen state to make the necessary changes to slow down the pace of climate change. I think that is certainly true, but it's worse than that. The following paragraphs of the document outline why:
Delete15. "Some effects of the climate crisis are already irreversible, at least for several hundred years, such as the increase in the global temperature of the oceans, their acidification and the decrease of oxygen. Ocean waters have a thermal inertia and centuries are needed to normalize their temperature and salinity, which affects the survival of many species. This is one of the many signs that the other creatures of this world have stopped being our companions along the way and have become instead our victims."
16. 'The same can be said about the decrease in the continental ice sheets. The melting of the poles will not be able to be reversed for hundreds of years. As for the climate, there are factors that have persisted for long periods of time, independent of the events that may have triggered them. For this reason, we are now unable to halt the enormous damage we have caused. We barely have time to prevent even more tragic damage.'
17. 'Certain apocalyptic diagnoses may well appear scarcely reasonable or insufficiently grounded. This should not lead us to ignore the real possibility that we are approaching a critical point. Small changes can cause greater ones, unforeseen and perhaps already irreversible, due to factors of inertia. This would end up precipitating a cascade of events having a snowball effect. In such cases, it is always too late, since no intervention will be able to halt a process once begun. There is no turning back. We cannot state with certainty that all this is going to happen, based on present conditions. But it is certain that it continues to be a possibility, if we take into account phenomena already in motion that “sensitize” the climate, like the reduction of ice sheets, changes in ocean currents, deforestation in tropical rainforests and the melting of permafrost in Russia, etc. [12]"
18." Consequently, a broader perspective is urgently needed, one that can enable us to esteem the marvels of progress, but also to pay serious attention to other effects that were probably unimaginable a century ago. What is being asked of us is nothing other than a certain responsibility for the legacy we will leave behind, once we pass from this world."
What this is saying (and I was aware of it before) is that even if we succeed in sufficiently limiting our carbon emissions, we won't see the results of it in our lifetimes. We're not only doing it to care about one another here and now, we are asked to do it for generations yet to come. It's a heavy lift to care about people who aren't here yet.
Of course when we find ourselves at the bottom of a deep hole, the main thing is to stop digging it deeper. We may not be able to entirely get out of the hole in the immediate future, but we should stop making it worse.
One place I part company with the document is its seeming dismissal of technology. I think we should be working overtime to develop technology in service of arresting global warming. Such as AI. AI is truly a Pandora's box, it has potential for both good and ill. But in the original Pandora story, the last thing to fly out of the box was a bird called Hope. If, for instance, AI could help us get a handle on cold fusion, that would truly be a game changer for the planet.
Both solar and wind energy are technologies, and had to start somewhere.
Unfortunately given the severe dysfunction of our political system right now, the will to develop a sort of collective energy asceticism simply isn't there.
It must be remembered that a large part of China's (and India's) greenhouse gas output results from manufacturing and a large part of that is making things for us. I don't know what the numbers are but it should be substantial.
ReplyDeleteClimatologist Katherine Hayhoe, Chief Scientist for the Nature Conservancy, posted on FB that the Pope's exhortation was not a breath of fresh air but a bucket of ice water in the face of the ass draggers (my nomenclature). She then quoted several paragraphs. Hayhoe is also an evangelical Christian and has a religious based motivation to address the problem.
Christians and Catholics should be at the forefront in addressing climate change.
I drive a 2022 RAV4 hybrid. It gets 40 miles per gallon. That car put on 14,000 miles in its first year. That is 350 gallons of gasoline. Multiplying by 19 pounds CO2 per gallon burnt, that's 6,650 pounds (>3 tons) of CO2 per year for my car only. If I didn't have a hybrid, that would be over 5 tons. The car cost me 43k. A Prius would be cheaper and more efficient (53mpg) but I couldn't get one last year. Anyway, far from zero but I'll try to cut back somehow. I have no idea what my electric heat generates. I'm looking into a heat pump. My economic resources are better than most people's which makes this obvious that solving this problem will require more than individual initiative.
Estimated pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour is 0.9 pounds. My electric usage over the past year was 136,000 kwh. That comes out to almost 7 tons of CO2. That comes down to 10 tons CO2 per year under my control. If I live another 15 years, that's 150 tons CO2. I guess the average for Americans is 14 tons. Not sure if that includes making our stuff in China but I doubt it. Now I have to see how I can knock down my ten tons. The Pope has me looking at this again.
Delete5.6 tons CO2 to make a car. Most of it for steel manufacture. That brings my last year total to 15.6 tons. I keep cars ten years so it averages to 1/2 ton CO2 a year.
DeleteWe keep our cars at least ten years too. Back in the bad old days we had a couple old enough to vote. And none of them were brand new to begin with, I don't expect that to change going forward. It's the difference between maybe $15 K and 40 - $50 K now. The transition to electric cars has a lot of complications. One of the big ones is how well they hold up over time. A lot of people buy used cars.
DeleteAnother thing not mentioned a lot are the rare metals required in the batteries. The majority of which are mined in African countries under dangerous conditions and sometimes by child labor of kids not even in their teens.
We have an electric heat pump system. It is combination heat and AC. We have had it for as long as we have owned the house, 28 years (we had to replace it once). I can recommend it for lower energy costs and adequate comfort.
DeleteOur town is the headquarters of Nebraska Public Power (The City of Power and Progress, LOL). There were financial incentives back in the day for people to go all electric when they built.
I actually have a heat pump but it's only good down to the upper forties. It's over 30 years and it died this year. I'm going to look at the setup where it uses the ground as a thermal reservoir. Expensive but effective.
DeleteOurs has an auxiliary backup (also electric) built into the system because temperatures here get way below 40s sometimes. But I was surprised that the heat pump does kick in, in the 30s and upper 20s. It doesn't pull the whole load there but every little bit helps.
DeleteYeah, people who have the geothermal kind say they are nice.
Low income people can't afford that stuff, and renters have no control over appliances. HoA's are also busy banning residential solar panels and windmills.
DeleteWe did get rid of our gas stove and replaced with electric some years back. Pain in the neck during power outages, which are frequent after summer storms and during line maintenance.
May be able to replace the 40 gal h20 heater w 20 gal electric in next year.
Looked at trading the 2004 Merc Marquis for an e-bike for Raber, but he got run down in the church parking lot so only encouraging him to ride stationary bike.
Honda HRV is 8 yrs old and holding up ok. Hoping I never have to buy another one in this lifetime!
Jean, you reminded me of what I forgot to say. Since many if not most people can afford these "green" adaptations, the gummint has to be involved. Capitalism won't solve the problem.
DeleteTo Katherine, electric motors in cars should endure like electric motors in Waring blenders. A very long time. The problem is the batteries. Hopefully the r&d will fix that.
I meant "can't afford".
DeleteOf possible interest, in which expert notes that climate doomists are often as bad as climate deniers. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/10/06/our-fragile-moment-climate-change
ReplyDeleteProb with getting fundigelicals Christians on board is their rejection of evolution and the climate science based on that. So if you want their support, best to take the tack that clean fuels prevent asthma in the vulnerable and keep us independent of foreign (Muslim) oil.
Jean, I think you are right about climate doomists sometimes being as bad as cllimate deniers. It's easy for people to descend into being scolds in pursuit of worthwhile goals. What you said previously about a perception of never-ending self denial and joylessness is something to avoid.
DeleteStanley, I'm going to have to check out Katherine Hayhoe, it sounds like she has some interesting thoughts.
Jim, I saw your update. Voluntary simplicity is one thing. But nobody wants to live like they were in China, even if they do emit less GHG per person.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, I don't think we have to live like the Chinese to reduce our CO2 output. I think we can live well, maybe better than we do now and still accomplish these goals. Actually, I think all we on the forum live rather simply and conservatively. There are probably people who would consider our lifestyles cramped and underprivileged.
DeleteI think one of the strains of American culture is the libertarian, "f*ck you; I earned my money and I'm going to spend whatever I feel like and do whatever the hell I want to, and nobody is going to tell me how to live my life." Somehow, "Don't tread on me" got reduced to that. If Francis is perceived to be a finger-wagging nag, it would be counterproductive to that segment of the American populace.
Delete"nobody wants to live like they were in China, even if they do emit less GHG per person."
DeleteYes, it's a hard sale; in fact, I don't think many people will buy it. That fact helps us understand how we've landed on the policies currently getting promoted. You don't have to drive less than you do now; but drive electric cars so you're burning less fossil fuel. You can continue to use as many electronic devices as you do now; but generate the electricity to power those devices with wind or solar rather than coal or petroleum.
Jim, I don't have a problem with any of that, except we would probably look for a hybrid rather than all-electric car next time, given the distances getting from point a to point b in this state.
DeleteOne of my sons put me on to Kurzgesagt videos, short, entertaining pieces on current topics "in a nutshell". I found this one hopeful, titled "We WILL fix climate change". Maybe some of you would enjoy it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw
Katherine, thanks for that video link. I like it! I will say: I would guess it might be a little too "technocratic" for Francis :-). But I agree with the point that what progress we've made has been due as much or more to free-market operations (which in turn are attributable to individual consumers and producers pursuing their own interests), rather than via government policies and subsidies.
DeleteAnd if we wait for government policies we may be waiting a long time. But government help especially in the area of research can certainly help things along.
DeleteThis may be an instance where social media has actually been helpful in getting the message out to people that we need to change.
I liked the part of the video that we shouldn't burden young people with despair, to the extent that some of them are afraid to have children.
So far, government incentives have mostly benefited the prosperous. Poor people, regular people can't afford an electric car. I was not opposed to that because I was hoping that would advance the technology to the point it would cheapen down to the level regular people could afford it. But it doesn't seem to be happening. I agree that technology is needed to solve this problem but not without a change of heart and way of life. The Market only serves to placate and seduce the mass of egos. Advertising brainwashes the people to want what they don't need.
DeleteI listened to Moby Dick a few months ago on Audible. The Pequod represents the ambitious American capitalist spirit rapaciously attacking nature to turn it into dollars. But, in the end, the whale wins. I want to change but I can't do it alone.
Moby Dick, that takes me back to American Lit, in high school. I actually thought it was a good story. My husband and I were talking about it, I think that class was junior year in our high school. Yeah, the whale did win. Ahab was your quintessential obsessed person (kind of reminds me of Trump a little?) There was some good dialogue. Melville did a good job creating a word movie.
DeleteOne thing I liked in the video was the thought that if we made things better, they would last longer and we wouldn't have to replace them as often, leading to less waste and use of resources.
It might be worth a revisit after years if life after high school. I was surprised by the wry humor in it. And he goes into so much detail about whales and the brutal process of whaling.
DeleteLast weekend, I stayed overnight in Pittsfield MA. The next day we visited Arrowhead, Melville's home. There used to be a tree that was struck and scarred by lightning. This was the inspiration for Ahab's scarred face. Melville liked the view from his window of Mount Greylock because it reminded him of a whale. Melville's early works were light descriptions of the Pacific isles in which he sojourned. They were very popular. The deeper Moby Dick was a flop. Now no one reads his early stuff except scholars but everyone knows the Whale.
Interesting socio-environmental take on "Moby Dick," one of my favorite books.
DeleteI recommend reading it often. Or, once you get the gist of the plot, reading chapters at random. The book is like a big literary attic, full of natural history, classical and biblical allusions, technical info on ships and whale hunting, vivid portraits of strange and terrible people, and observations on human psychology.
If you would rather listen, it's free here, and the reader is quite good: https://librivox.org/moby-dick-by-herman-melville
Thanks for the link, Jean.
DeleteThat's a good suggestion, Jean. Now that I "read" the book through, I can read it in parts. It is a remarkable book. And there's a deep philosophical dimension to it as well. According to the Arrowhead tour guide lady, Melville took this serious turn in his writing after befriending Nathaniel Hawthorne and having extensive conversations with him.
DeleteFortunately, Melville did not take Hawthorne's novels as a pattern for his own. Hawthorne is far better at short stories. I do listen to Basil Rathbone reading "Young Goodman Brown" every Halloween. "The Minister's Black Veil" is also nice and creepy. Students loved that one.
DeleteFun fact : Hawthorne's ancestor was one of the judges who convicted my ancestor, George Jacobs, to be hanged as a witch in Salem. Hawthorne supposedly changed the spelling of his name, from "Hathorne," to distance himself from the judge. Judge Hathorne was the only judge who did not later repent his role in that deal.
Apologies for the needless digression.
That is really interesting but not surprising. The Puritans were definitely not Mennonites. Probably was inspiration for the dark side in the writings of both authors.
DeleteOnly excitement in my ancestry is my granduncle getting shot dead in bed with someone else's wife. Violent but not of historical interest.
The aftermath of the witch trials deserves more attention. Monetary restitution was made to the victims' families. Most officials made public apologies for their part in the trials. Most importantly, people were so appalled by the whole thing that reforms of the types of evidence that could be permitted in court were enacted. The victims in Salem did not die in vain.
DeleteNantucket Island is one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been.
DeleteMy husband is out of danger medically, thanks be to God, but were now dealing with a huge bureaucratic hospital snafu. This afternoon they told us he was being discharged to a skilled nursing facility TODAY. The ambulance took him to the shock trauma center at a big hospital in Virginia. The best in the DC area. They wanted to send him to a nursing home in a Virginia town well more than an hour away claiming that there are no beds available in Maryland. Well, it’s Sunday of a long weekend, they are familiar with the Virginia places and I seriously doubt that they called any in Maryland today. We have had to file a Medicare appeal just to keep him in the hospital one more night.The caseworker who called us was a nightmare who obviously didn’t want to be bothered helping us today.
Prayers please for a good transfer to a Maryland facility near mt home.m much more to tell but I won’t waste your time.
Anne, I'm hoping and praying that the bureaucratic snafu can be worked out. I have had the experience of trying to help a friend who was having post surgery difficulties get a skilled nursing admission on the weekend. Found out that NOTHING happens in bureaucracy on a weekend. I hope now that Monday morning is here you can get some help. Please let us know how things turn out.
DeleteCaseworkers are there to throw people out of the hospital as soon as their benefits are used up, not to help families find the best possible match for their situations. It is a sucky situation, and I'm sorry you are dealing with it.
DeleteRescued today when the doc from the ICU visited my husband in the step down. When he found out what had happened, and that several things hadn’t happened - like enough PTband only one time in a chair he went to work. I found a good temporary skilled nursing place today ten minutes from my home. My husband will stay in the hospital at least two more days. But after 17 days of extreme stress and little sleep I’m near collapse. Good night my online friends and thank you.
DeleteGlad the ICU doc helped out. Yes, get some much needed rest!
DeleteThanks for the great work that everybody has done to contribute to this discussion. I hope when Francis's Exhortation is discussed in the synod that they have this quality of discussion with all the laity and religious women from all around the world that are now members of the Synod.
ReplyDeleteI think the problems and challenges are such that a lot of work is going to have to be done over the coming year to craft a vision that will fit our complex world. I think Francis understands that a one size fits all vision will not work; that is why we are having and will continue to likely have synods at the national and regional levels to discuss these issues. I would be really good if we Catholics around the world could unite on the environment.
I have a lot of reservations about Francis presenting the problem as one of a "technocratic paradigm" as is the big obstacle. The reality is that throughout history the rich and the powerful have used technology to dominate people. The Roman Empire had the greatest road system to move its armies and their supplies quicky around the Empire. The roads were not a bad idea. They helped to move people and trade as well as the military.
I am going to have to reread the Encyclical and try to understand better Francis thinking on the issue of technology, but I think I am going to disagree with him. I will probably do a post later on the issue.
I'm not one to consider technology as a cure all. I was cured of that a while back. But any solution to our situation will require technological applications and changes. The reason the earth can support 8B humans is because of technology. If it were removed suddenly, like by an EMP from outer space, most people on the planet would starve. It is a precarious situation. We can't de-technologize our way out of this. But our technology MUST change. I think rolling back automobile technology WOULD be possible without real adverse effects.
Delete