On Planet in Distress, a Papal Call to Action
Pope Francis has written the first papal encyclical focused
solely on the environment, attempting to reframe care of the earth as a
moral and spiritual concern, and not just a matter of politics, science
and economics. In the document, “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common
Home,” he argues that the environment is in crisis – cities to oceans,
forests to farmland. He emphasizes that the poor are most affected by
damage from what he describes as economic systems that favor the
wealthy, and political systems that lack the courage to look beyond
short-term rewards. But the encyclical is addressed to everyone on the
planet. Its 184 pages are an urgent, accessible call to action, making a
case that all is interconnected, including the solutions to the grave
environmental crisis.
Paragraph 3
“More than fifty years ago, with the world
teetering on the brink of nuclear crisis, Pope Saint John XXIII wrote an
Encyclical which not only rejected war but offered a proposal for
peace. He addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire ‘Catholic
world’ and indeed ‘to all men and women of good will.’ Now, faced as we
are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person living on this planet.”
Laurie Goodstein, Religion Reporter:
By invoking “Pacem in Terris,” or
“Peace on Earth,” one of the most famous encyclicals ever issued and
one addressed to the world, Pope Francis is making it clear he wants his
document to be a historic watershed.
Paragraph 6
“My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed ‘eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.’ ”
Laurie Goodstein:
Francis repeatedly relies on the
words of his predecessors, Benedict XVI and John Paul II, now Saint John
Paul, to establish that he is hardly the first pope to be critical of
economic systems that exacerbate inequality, or of the unchecked
extraction of natural resources.
Paragraph 14
“Young people demand change. They
wonder how anyone can claim to be building a better future without
thinking of the environmental crisis and the sufferings of the
excluded.”
Justin Gillis, Science Reporter:
Here Pope Francis acknowledges the
sharp divide on environmental issues between young people and their
elders, with the most urgent demands for change coming from college
students and other young people. It is, of course, young people who have
the most at stake, since they will inherit a world of intensifying
environmental problems. This is also an early nod to a theme he will
develop later in the document: the connections between environmental
destruction and poverty.
Paragraph 21
“The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.
In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful
landscapes are now covered with rubbish. Industrial waste and chemical
products utilized in cities and agricultural areas can lead to
bioaccumulation in the organisms of the local population, even when
levels of toxins in those places are low. Frequently no measures are
taken until after people’s health has been irreversibly affected.”
Justin Gillis:
Here Francis begins to spell out a
litany of specific environmental issues that concern him. One
remarkable aspect of the encyclical is that it focuses broadly on what
he calls “the ecological crisis,” and not just on a single aspect like
pollution or global warming. The pope is concerned about all the ways
humanity is damaging the planet, and how that environmental assault is
returning like a boomerang to harm humanity itself.
Paragraph 22
“But our industrial system, at the end of
its cycle of production and consumption, has not developed the capacity
to absorb and reuse waste and by-products. We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model
of production capable of preserving resources for present and future
generations, while limiting as much as possible the use of non-renewable
resources, moderating their consumption, maximizing their efficient
use, reusing and recycling them.”
Justin Gillis:
Francis is alluding here to what
many experts believe will be the great economic challenge of the 21st
century: improved efficiency in using resources. Whole books have
been devoted in recent years to the need to reduce waste and produce
more with less, and doing so has become an increasing focus for many of
the world’s leading businesses.
Paragraph 23
“A very solid scientific consensus indicates
that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic
system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a
constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of
extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause
cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption,
in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which
produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such
as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the
solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most
global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others)
released mainly as a result of human activity.”
Laurie Goodstein:
Much of the controversy preceding
the encyclical in the United States has been focused on this point:
Would Francis take a position on whether climate change is
human-induced. Any suspense is now over: He has, citing scientific
studies.
Paragraph 24
“If present trends continue, this century
may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented
destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.
A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious
situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population
lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities
are situated in coastal areas.”
Justin Gillis:
As he does at several other points
in his document, Pope Francis here puts himself firmly on the side of
mainstream climate science and its analysis of the risks of global
warming. “May” is a crucial word; scientists are not certain these
things will happen, but they believe the possibility is too high to
discount or ignore, and that the only way to reduce the risk is to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In this passage, Francis cites one
of the gravest risks, an accelerating rise in sea levels that could
ultimately inundate many of the world’s great cities, though scientists
say the worst effects might not occur until the 22nd or 23rd centuries.
Paragraph 44
“Nowadays, for example, we are conscious of
the disproportionate and unruly growth of many cities, which have become
unhealthy to live in, not only because of pollution caused by toxic
emissions but also as a result of urban chaos, poor transportation, and
visual pollution and noise. Many cities are huge, inefficient
structures, excessively wasteful of energy and water. Neighbourhoods,
even those recently built, are congested, chaotic and lacking in
sufficient green space. We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature.”
Justin Gillis:
This is an odd passage that is
likely to provoke argument from many urban thinkers. Here the pope
assails cities as wasteful and inefficient. Perhaps he has in mind some
of the chaotic cities of the developing world, with their great slums
and other problems. Yet well-designed and well-run cities are often seen
as one of the major answers to environmental problems, with city
dwellers often having less of a carbon footprint than the residents of
suburbs or rural areas, thanks in part to the availability of public
transport. At several later points in the encyclical, the pope does seem
to acknowledge this, citing various ways that cities can be improved
and can contribute to solving the ecological crisis.
Paragraph 50
“Instead of resolving the problems of the
poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only
propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries
face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance
contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health.’ Yet ‘while it
is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available
resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the
environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth
is fully compatible with an integral and shared development.’ To
blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on
the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”
Justin Gillis:
Some demographers will undoubtedly
argue that in this passage, it is the pope who is refusing to face the
issues. Many experts regard rapid population growth as damaging to the
local environment and to the lives of people in poor countries. It is
also true, however, that the linkage between high population growth and
global warming is often overstated. The two areas of the world that
continue to have high growth, sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, are
also impoverished areas with low emissions of greenhouse gases.
Laurie Goodstein:
The church teaches that according
to what is known as “natural law,” sex must be open to procreation and
artificial contraception is a sin. Francis has certainly reinforced that
doctrine here. Despite his off-the-cuff comment this
year that Catholics must not feel compelled to breed “like rabbits,” he
is rejecting birth control and the notion that population growth is a
major contributor to environmental problems. Catholic traditionalists
had warned that Francis was forming dangerous alliances with
environmentalists who promote population control; it will be interesting
to see if this passage addresses their concerns.
Paragraph 67
“We are not God. The earth was here before
us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge
that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account
which grants man ‘dominion’ over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has
encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as
domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct
interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is
true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the
Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our
being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies
absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to
be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing
that they tell us to ‘till and keep’ the garden of the world (cf. Gen
2:15). ‘Tilling’ refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while
‘keeping’ means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This
implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature.”
Laurie Goodstein:
Francis here is taking to task
those Christians and churches that interpret the reference in Genesis to
humans taking “dominion” over the earth as a license to exploit and
deplete natural resources. He is trying to substitute a different notion
of the relationship between humans and creation: that of “tilling” and
“keeping.”
Paragraph 168
“Among positive experiences in this regard, we might mention, for example, the Basel Convention on hazardous wastes,
with its system of reporting, standards and controls. There is also the
binding Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild
fauna and flora, which includes on-site visits for verifying effective
compliance. Thanks to the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer and its implementation through the Montreal Protocol and amendments, the problem of the layer’s thinning seems to have entered a phase of resolution.”
Justin Gillis:
In a document that laments the
overall lack of progress, the pope is taking pains here to point out
some cases that prove that nations can cooperate for the common good. He
is citing three of the world’s most successful environmental treaties,
including one that limited output of gases that were destroying the
ozone layer, which shields the planet from damaging radiation.
Paragraph 171
“The strategy of buying and selling ‘carbon credits’ can lead to a new form of speculation
which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide.
This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise
of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow
for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it
may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive
consumption of some countries and sectors.”
Justin Gillis:
This could be the oddest single
passage in the entire encyclical, and it is certain to provoke sharp
criticism. In a document that is mostly broad and general, Pope Francis
goes out of his way here to condemn a system called cap-and-trade,
in which governments limit heat-trapping emissions from businesses,
issue permits up to the limit and allow companies to buy and sell those
permits, which are sometimes called carbon credits. The system
effectively puts a price on pollution from greenhouse gases. If designed
properly, this type of system, according to environmental economists,
can be one of the best ways to get control of emissions. It is true that
Europe, which operates the planet’s largest cap-and-trade system, ran
into early problems with loose rules and market manipulation, and has
struggled to make repairs. But this type of system is operating
effectively in California,
the Northeastern United States and some other areas, which had the
benefit of studying Europe’s mistakes and avoiding them. Environmental
economists are likely to give the pope a serious argument about this
passage.
Paragraph 178
“A politics concerned with immediate
results, supported by consumerist sectors of the population, is driven
to produce short-term growth. In response to electoral interests,
governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could
affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment. The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda of governments.”
Laurie Goodstein:
Francis calls on local and
national governments to look toward the long term and the common good.
He goes on to say that individually and in groups, people can make an
impact by organizing and pressuring governments to reorder their
priorities. This is an example of Francis aiming to inspire citizens
everywhere, and not just Catholics, to take action in their communities.
As he says later in the the encyclical, “Unless citizens control
political power - national, regional and municipal - it will not be
possible to control damage to th
No comments:
Post a Comment