US Bishops on Climate Change
On June 7, John Carr, the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Department of Social Development and World Peace, testified
before the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding
the Catholic “bishops’ position on climate change.” Although the
testimony does not break much new ground over the 2001 bishops’
statement on the issue, it does have some interesting bits, including a
statement that, although it still hedges a little bit, comes closer
than the 2001 document (or at least my hazy memory of that document) to
a straightforward acknowledgment that climate change is happening.
Here are a few highlights:
The bishops accept the growing
consensus on climate change represented by the International Panel on
Climate Change, but also recognize continuing debate and some
uncertainties about the speed and severity of climate change. However,
it is not wise or useful to either minimize or exaggerate the
uncertainties and challenges we face.…Prudence requires wise
action to address problems that will most likely only grow in magnitude
and consequences. Prudence is not simply about avoiding impulsive
action, picking the predictable course or avoiding risks, but it can
also require taking bold action weighing available policy alternative
and moral goods and taking considered and decisive stops before the
problems grow worse.We believe solidarity also requires that
the United States lead the way in addressing this issue and in
addressing the disproportionate burdens of poorer countries and
vulnerable people.Those who contributed least to climate change
will be affected the most; those who face the greatest threats will
likely bear the greatest burdens and have the least capacity to cope or
escape. We should come together to focus more on protecting the poor
than on protecting ourselves and promoting narrow agendas.
There have always been climate cycles, this will never stop. We do not have control over the climate and never will as God is in control! We need to get to work on ourselves as better examples so God can use us for his work of bring souls to Him. Oh by the way unless the big guy wants to end the world we can’t as he is the one in control not us! Have faith!
Quote: [There have always been climate cycles, this will never stop. We do not have control over the climate and never will as God is in control! We need to get to work on ourselves as better examples so God can use us for his work of bring souls to Him. Oh by the way unless the big guy wants to end the world we can't as he is the one in control not us! Have faith!]
Well, I guess that takes care of that, then.
Not just that, unagidon, but everything else as well. Substitute “abortion,” “murder,” “war,” “injustice,” or “crime” for “climate cycles” and “the world,” in RES’s comment, and you have the perfect recipe for inaction. Not very Catholic, though, in its perfect denial of human free will. The scary thing is that I think such reasoning guides a lot of religious responses to climate change. For example, in his testimony before the same Committee, a theologian and dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Dr. Russell Moore), said that “we must maintain the limits of environmental action, knowing that the ultimate liberation of creation has everything to do with our resurrection and the resumption of human rule through Christ over this universe.”
What a neat post on a day when our President is in Alabama talking about energy and at the same time fundraising.
As to our Bishops, now that they ar ehere in the high desert of the Land of Enchantment, maybe their appreciation of what drought can do in this land where water is so precious, might help raise consciousness a bit.
I’m waiting for the usual suspects in the Catholic blogosphere to throw their usual fit. But why are so many on the American right engaged in hard-care denial when it comes to global warming? 10 reasons here (tongue-in-cheek alert): http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/05/ten-reasons-why-american-right.html.
Also, check out what we’ve been doing on Vox Nova as regards global warming: http://www.vox-nova.com/search/label/Climate%20Change
Please stay on subject, I was not talking about the other issues you brought up. Check out weather through history there have always been cycles. I did not say we should not try to keep things cleaned up. Also do not attack the person instead it would be best if you only attacked what was said about the subject. I am just stating that too many people forget that God is in control and we are not. We need not get in God’s way.
RES, God’s presumeably in control of cancer, too, but does that mean we oughtn’t look for a cure?
Or are you saying that climate change isn’t a malady to begin with?
Just having a hard time trying to figure out what your point is.
If RES’s understanding of God and the world is correct, it is not possible to get in God’s way. In fact, it is not possible to sin.
No one wants to get my point, you all have it wrong. This is why I rarely post on websites too far left or right people only see what they want to see and do not want a discussion. Too bad, God Bless. Guess I’m too Catholic!
Res: “No one wants to get my point,”
You seem to be saying that climate change is not man-made and, furthermore, man is powerless to control it. Therefore, since only God can control climate, the only thing left for us to do is “have faith”.
Which moves me to ask: Where are the atheists when you need them?
That is correct climate change has been taking place forever, it is now taking place on other planets. I guess they drive too many SUVs also. As I am Catholic , I ask there is somthing wrong with having faith? We need to get over ourselves (you know- me, myself and I) and realize that it is not about “US”. We are not in control the Lord is. We need to keep the earth clean but the US has done so much the air is cleaner , lakes, stream etc. then they were 200 years ago as we know how the do more then we did then. Another God given talent! Have faith.
JOY
Jesus first
Others
Then self!
Unfortunaetly, i could not access Morning’s Minion’s tongue-in-cheek explanation for why so many conservative Americans deny the supposed threats of glabal warming–which I’m sure would have been amuseing–but here’s my personal reasons for not jumping on the climate doomsday bandwagon (many of which are familiar arguments, I’m sure):
–in the 1970s, scientists predicted a new ice age from global cooling which obviously never happened
–melting glaciers in the Alps have revealed evidence of ancient mining sites and forests which of course means that those areas were once free of ice, then ice-covered, and now may be free of ice again (thus, a natural cycle)
–the warming trend evident on Mars through the shrinking of its polar ice caps, thus suggesting that solar radiation is responsible
–the extremely liberal/politically correct nature of the global warming movement which suggests that even though civilization itself is somehow at risk that developing nations like China and India (both nuclear powers and China at least having its own space program) should somehow be exempt because the West has already gotten rich off of burning carbon … if civlization is at risk, if life iteself on this planet is endangered, then there is no jutsifcation for exempting China and india (China, by the way, may have already surpassed the US in producing greenhouse gasses, according to recent reports)
–likewise, the kneejerk opposition to nuclear energy for the same reasons (i.e., if life itself is endangered, we have no choice but to consider nuclear energy)
That being said, I have no objection to reducing our use of fossil fuels or our dependence on foreign oil or even conserving more energy … but we are and always will be an energy-consuming society. We must find ways to generate more and more energy. Simply conserving or cutting back or even rationing energy are extremely short-term approaches that only work during times of crisis (i.e., war-time rationing or oil embargoes) and cannot be sustained except by draconian measures. There is also a great unrealism on the global warming side that somehow thinks that Americans will cut back on their own lifestyles, deny their own children a better future, all for the sake of preventing small islands in the south pacific–which most americans have never even heard of–from sinking beneath the rising tide or other such nonsense. It will not happen–and so any plan to reduce global warming must offer people a viable alternative if it is expected to win support of the American electorate.
Robert:
Try this: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/05/ten-reasons-why-american-right.html
Thanks, Morning’s Minion,
I could read it now … more thought-provoking than guffaw-inducing (except for the part about Europeans being among the ‘damned,’ which at least earns a chuckle …)
You really should not assume issues, as I assumed that that this is a Catholic website. Talking to the left is like talking to the right you can not have a discussion unless you agree with them too bad.
The objection many have is that the global warming issue has taken on the appearance of a cultural and scientific Jihad. No one may question it, and all the answers point to more power to government.
How do you explain that warming on the earth seems to be paralleling warming on other planets like Venus and Mars?
How do you explain that warming and cooling and violent weather was much more dramatic in the 13th-15th centuries – well before greenhouse gasses were an issue and when the human population was a fraction of what it is today? What about the fact that millions of square miles of southern Mexico and parts of Central America turned from forested to desert at the height of Mayan civiliazation and back to forests in less than two centuries? Were the Mayans driving SUV’s?
How do we know that by “doing something” to fix the problem we won’t make things worse for humanity? After all, the supposed causes of global warming weren’t the result of a bunch of people saying – Why don’t we ruin the environment? Why is it that liberals always think that their “solving a problem” won’t have unintended consequences?
How do we even know that global warming is a bad thing? It may be different, but is it bad? In the century preceeding the “Little Ice Age” temperatures were much higher than normal resulting in a longer growing season more trade and a healthier population – it was the cold wet weather that preceeded the Black Death. What if fewer polar bears results in abundant harvests in Sub Saharan Africa? Even a lot of the global warming will admit if they are honest that they don’t know what the net effect will be.
I got into this a bit late. But I would like to see Sean’s objections answered. If that is true that we transitioned between hot and cold, that proposition has to be addressed.
At the same time, Sean, should you not address these statistics which were previously referenced? http://www.vox-nova.com/search/label/Climate%20Change
For useful information on climate change, check out the Real Climate blog (“climate science from climate scientists”). Some of the discussions get technical, but they have information on the issues to respond to questions raised about the science. There are good links for more basic information.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/