Pope Francis blames 'human selfishness' for global warming

[Kanzler]

Spoiler:

Pope Francis has blamed human selfishness for global warming in his long-awaited encyclical calling for action on climate change. In the letter, he urges the rich to change their lifestyles to avert the destruction of the ecosystem. Environmentalists hope the message will spur on nations ahead of the UN climate conference in Paris in December. But parts of the document, leaked earlier this week, have already been criticised by some US conservatives. It has been dismissed by two Republican presidential candidates.

The encyclical, named "Laudato Si (Be Praised), On the Care of Our Common Home", aims to inspire everyone - not just Roman Catholics - to protect the Earth. The 192-page letter, which is the highest level teaching document a pope can issue, lays much of the blame for global warming on human activities. Pope Francis writes that: "We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. "The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life." He criticises what he calls a "collective selfishness", but says that there is still time to stop the damage, calling for an end to consumerism and greed.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi launched the pontiff's second encyclical at a news conference on Thursday. The teaching is more evidence of a pontiff determined to act as a catalyst for change, and a powerful diplomatic player on the world stage, says the BBC's religious affairs correspondent Caroline Wyatt. The release comes six months before international leaders gather in Paris to try to seal a deal to reduce carbon emissions. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the document, saying climate change was a "moral issue requiring respectful dialogue with all parts of society". It has also been widely praised by environmental groups, with WWF president Yolanda Kakabadse saying it "adds a much-needed moral approach'' to the debate on climate change. Greenpeace leader Kumi Naidoo highlighted passages calling for policies that reduce carbon emissions, including by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

But a leak of the document, published by Italy's L'Espresso magazine on Tuesday, had a frosty response from sceptical conservatives in America, including two Roman Catholic presidential candidates. Jeb Bush said he did not get his economic policy from his bishops, cardinals or pope - so why his policy on the environment? Meanwhile Rick Santorum questioned whether the Pope was credible on the issue of climate science. US Senator, Jim Inhofe, chairman of the US Senate Environment Committee, said he disagreed with the Pope's "philosophy" on global warming. "I am concerned that his encyclical will be used by global warming alarmists to advocate for policies that will equate to the largest, most regressive tax increase in our nation's history."

However, many academics have welcomed the pontiff's input. Prof Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford in the UK, said: "If Pope Francis can't speak up for our unborn grandchildren, then God help us all." The UN's climate change chief Christiana Figueres says the Pope's message will influence talks in Paris this year on a deal to tackle global warming. Developing countries are demanding firmer promises of financial help from rich countries so they can adapt to inevitable changes in the climate and get clean energy to avoid contributing to further warming. Ms Figueres said their position would be strengthened by the Pope's insistence that this was the clear moral responsibility of the rich. The encyclical will be welcomed by poor countries in Africa and Latin America.

The big question is how it will play in the USA, where it has already been dismissed by a Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who is a Catholic. Leading Republicans have warned the UN that they will undo President Barack Obama's climate policies - so if the encyclical sways any of the conservative Catholics in Congress that could prove significant.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33182065

First off, the Pope's a chemist by training. Do you think that Pope Francis, as the spiritual shepherd of over a billion Catholic Christians, holds any sway over his flock and the world at large? Will this convince the religious unconvinced wherever you live? What's your opinion of the Pope in general?

Other articles discussing this story:

CNN - Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change
The Washington Post - 10 key excerpts from Pope Francis's encyclical on the environment
The Guardian - The pope's encyclical on climate change – as it happened
The Atlantic - Why the Pope's New Climate-Change Doctrine Matters
Wall Street Journal - Pope Delivers Strong Message on Climate Change in Encyclical 'Laudato Si' '
Reuters - Pope calls for 'action now' to save planet, stem warming, help poor

Discuss.

 

[The Void]

Santorum is a hypocrite. The pope may not be a climate scientist himself but he knows how science works and he has an entire body of scientists to consult from.

His encyclical would definitely have a lot of weight, not only for the 1 billion Catholics that look up to him but for other religions that respect him too. The scientific community seems happy about it, too.

You can already read the encylical btw: https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

My feelings are mixed on the subject. While it's necessary to look for green alternative renewable resources, so we won't have to rely too much on fossil fuel and other limited energy sources, but I've been proven that we are not causing climate change, for it is a natural thing, and that the world is currently in a global cooling stage, though it doesn't explaining why the ice caps are still melting.

 

[Neo_Angelo]

The pope is right, we are to blame for our planets destruction. Not just global warming (we do contribute to the speeding up of the natural process). If you look at it this way, all life is sustained through equilibrium, Nature requires balance, there needs to be the same amount given as taken away.

Currently as a species, we humans are consuming far more resources than we replenish, our over population and rapid reproduction is what will kill this planet off, not only that, we have no consideration for other animals, we have caused so many to go extinct because we kill for fun, over indulge and waste so much.

Because Humans are greedy, wasteful and careless as a whole, it would take a hell of a lot of effort for everyone to be on board and start doing everything we can to save our planet. Just think, because we have evolved into intelligent (debatable) species, we end up fighting each other, blowing each other up with nuclear bombs (causing mass damage to the planet making parts uninhabitable), causing upset in the food chain (perfect example is cows, chickens and pigs are now vastly overpopulating the environment compared to other none tamed species).

Basically, we need to really think about what we are doing, how can we give back more than we take? there is only so much the planet will take before everything is destroyed, and that will be the end of us. Our biggest threat as a species? ourselves!

We have so many technological advances, and we've designed groundbreaking stuff, there are people who are using that technology to save the planet, we need to find new ways of utilising our technology so we can replenish the resources quicker than we harvest them.

 

[The Void]

My feelings are mixed on the subject. While it's necessary to look for green alternative renewable resources, so we won't have to rely too much on fossil fuel and other limited energy sources, but I've been proven that we are not causing climate change, for it is a natural thing, and that the world is currently in a global cooling stage, though it doesn't explaining why the ice caps are still melting.

Natural? Name one species of plant or animal that burns plastic and styrofoam, releases CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), and emits greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for their own purpose, on a daily basis.

Proven? There is a scientific consensus -- 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is a result of the actions of man.

 

[gimmepie]

My feelings are mixed on the subject. While it's necessary to look for green alternative renewable resources, so we won't have to rely too much on fossil fuel and other limited energy sources, but I've been proven that we are not causing climate change, for it is a natural thing, and that the world is currently in a global cooling stage, though it doesn't explaining why the ice caps are still melting.

Global Warming does occur naturally, but the scientific community at large has accepted that humanity's impact on the environment has increased the speed and severity of global warming significantly and weakened the ozone layer. This is not natural global warming we are experiencing, this is the systematic destruction of the only planet we currently have the means to survive on. The reason the ice caps are melting is because the planet is becoming too hot for them to remain frozen.

As for this pope, I like this one. He seems to be doing a lot of good things and quite frankly I don't care what religion you are from if you're trying to do some good in the world then you're okay in my book. I can only hope that not only the numerous Roman Catholics are listening to the pope's advice but that people of other religious or unreligious beliefs also respect what he is trying to do.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Natural? Name one species of plant or animal that burns plastic and styrofoam, releases CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), and emits greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for their own purpose, on a daily basis.

Proven? There is a scientific consensus -- 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is a result of the actions of man.

The planet itself isn't getting warmer, only the oceans other than the deep sea.

 

[Her]

The planet itself isn't getting warmer, only the oceans other than the deep sea.

Not to be all source elitist, but a source that isn't some clickbait Youtube channel would be preferred.

 

[The Void]

The planet itself isn't getting

​

warmer, only the oceans other than the deep sea.

...but if you'll listen to a popular science video like DNews then surely you'll believe:
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Geological Society of America
IPCC
A joint statement from the Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, the Royal Society of Canada, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Academié des Sciences, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, the Indian National Science Academy, the Accademia dei Lincei, the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society

...because you know, they have the actual scientists who make the actual studies.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Not to be all source elitist, but a source that isn't some clickbait Youtube channel would be preferred.

Here's an article about Mars experiencing climate change without the presence of humans:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html


And here's a 30 minute video that's less click baity than the previous video:

I'll have to ask my friend to provide me the sources he found once he's online.

 

[Her]

Here's an article about Mars experiencing climate change without the presence of humans:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

.....Did you even read the next page?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

.....Did you even read the next page?

Huh, I never notice that article had a second page (I've only read the first page). Guess I'll have to either wait for my friend to provide me his sources or I have dig deeper myself if he refuses (he doesn't enjoy getting into debates).

 

[Omicron]

I think these images speak for themselves.

We are not on a global cooling era, the fact that parts of the US were colder doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't disagree that global warming is caused by human selfishness but don't think pushing a socialist agenda is the answer. If he feels the moral responsibility is on the rich maybe he should sell the billions of dollars worth of religious artifacts stuffed inside the Vatican and donate the proceeds to greenpeace or whatever.

Whilst I'm not a huge fan of how ridiculously wealthy the Vatican is either for various reasons, I don't think we should write this off just because he's pushing some agenda. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't (he's a politician more or less, so he probably is) but the long and short of it, is that this could have a very positive effect on the world.

 

[The Void]

If he feels the moral responsibility is on the rich maybe he should sell the billions of dollars worth of religious artifacts stuffed inside the Vatican and donate the proceeds to greenpeace or whatever.

I beg to differ. Those artifacts represent over 2000 years of tradition, history, and culture. They're priceless. The Vatican is essentially a functioning museum. This pope already spoke out against bishops and priests who live in mansions (he defrocked the luxurious bishop of Berlin, for example), and Catholic orders such as the Knights of Columbus (which gives around $200 million in charity every year) and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which sends about 100 000 military paramedics to over 120 countries) have served the poorest of the poor without having to sell countless relics.

I personally think religious thought is silly and all too magical, but I can appreciate that the Church has done at least enough, to the best of its power, to address issues such as global warming and worldwide hunger.

 

[Her]

Well, I mean, I don't think anyone in the church actually has the power (let alone the desire) to sell off the various assets that the Vatican has in its possession. Such artifacts would be impossible to measure the wealth of and the actual logistics of such a sale are mind-boggling.

Though, on the topic of the Vatican/Catholic Church's finances, here is an interesting read:

What we do know is that Vatican Bank, officially titled the Institute for the Works of Religion, manages €5.9bn ($7.3bn, £4.64bn) of assets on behalf of its 17,400 customers. And it manages €700m of equity which it owns. Another titbit to emerge is that it keeps gold reserves worth over $20m with the US Federal Reserve.

The bank has been caught up in a number of scandals in the past, including the funding of priests caught up in sex abuse allegations and of money laundering for the Mafia and former Nazis.

This is why there are moves within parts of the church to make it more like a normal bank and open up its accounts for greater scrutiny. Protections for religious organisations mean it does not currently face the same transparency obligations as other financial institutions.

An investigation by the Economist estimated that the American Catholic church alone – which has the fourth largest follower base by country, behind Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines – spent $170bn in 2010 on things like healthcare, schools and parishes.

Money flows in from individual donations from Catholics, government grants, the church's own investments and corporate donors.

According to Georgetown University, the average weekly donation of an American Catholic to the church is $10. There are 85 million in North America, meaning each week the Catholic Church pulls in $850m through donations from individual Catholics.

Vatican City itself has a rich economy relative to its size. Though data is scarce, and the exact GDP figure is unknown, the CIA estimates Vatican City's 2011 revenue to be $308m. It only has a population of 800 people, meaning its nominal GDP per capita is $365,796 – making it the richest state on the planet by this measure.

 

[Sir Codin]

His point was that someone who's sitting as the leader of a city state with more wealth than many small nations has no business lecturing us about "human selfishness", or the "evils of materialism" as it makes him look like a hypocrite.

The Pope is certainly right to finally acknowledge that climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution are real and a problem, but his message of "the rich must do their part", based on what he's said in the past, basically amounts to "give the poor your money and property" which basically has socialist undertones.

As someone who detests any system that can only work with increased government control bordering on totalitarianism, I can honestly say "GG Pope, but still, fuck you."

 

[Kanzler]

His point was that someone who's sitting as the leader of a city state with more wealth than many small nations has no business lecturing us about "human selfishness", or the "evils of materialism" as it makes him look like a hypocrite.

The Pope is certainly right to finally acknowledge that climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution are real and a problem, but his message of "the rich must do their part", based on what he's said in the past, basically amounts to "give the poor your money and property" which basically has socialist undertones.

As someone who detests any system that can only work with increased government control bordering on totalitarianism, I can honestly say "GG Pope, but still, **** you."

I wouldn't say that. It would have socialist undertones if he made reference to government compulsion, but he didn't. If the pope can't advocate for the rich to give to the poor, then how could he possible advocate donation and philanthropy?

 

[The Void]

His point was that someone who's sitting as the leader of a city state with more wealth than many small nations has no business lecturing us about "human selfishness", or the "evils of materialism" as it makes him look like a hypocrite.

But unlike those small nations the Vatican doesn't spend most of its money on standing armies and infrastructure, it spends it on building churches, hospitals, schools, and funding philanthropic orders like the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Knights of Columbus, the Military Order of Malta...

The Pope is certainly right to finally acknowledge that climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution are real and a problem, but his message of "the rich must do their part", based on what he's said in the past, basically amounts to "give the poor your money and property" which basically has socialist undertones.

Honestly I think he's just echoing what Jesus would say:

If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.​

Matthew 19:21​

 

[Sir Codin]

I'm not religious in any way shape or form.

You are literally preaching to the fucking choir, Void.