Catholic officials, organizations launch campaign for climate change
WARSAW, Poland (CNS) -- Catholic Church officials from 38 countries have launched a campaign with more than 170 Catholic organizations to persuade the United Nations to meet the "moral obligation" of tackling climate change.
"Climate change is a reality today affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions in developing countries by exacerbating storms, droughts and natural disasters," said an appeal signed by 92 bishops, archbishops and cardinals.
"As a matter of equity and responsibility, those who have created the problem must pay for the solution. Economically developed nations have a moral obligation to tackle climate change because of their disproportionate consumption of natural resources," it said.
The climate campaign and related appeal were launched by Caritas Internationalis, which represents 162 national Caritas church charities, and CIDSE, a Belgian-based alliance of 16 Catholic development agencies. The campaign was introduced December 7 at the cathedral in Poznan, Poland, at a Mass concelebrated by Auxiliary Bishop Grzegorz Balcerek of Poznan and Auxiliary Bishop Theotonius Gomes of Dhaka, president of Caritas Bangladesh.
Government representatives from around the world were meeting in Poznan December 1-12 for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The religious leaders' appeal, titled "A Call for Climate Justice," said poor communities were affected the worst by climate change, but had "done (the) least to cause it." It pledged Catholics worldwide would "stand in profound solidarity" with those suffering harsh effects.
"We are deeply concerned by the disproportionate impact human-induced climate change is having on poor and vulnerable people living in developing countries," it said.
"It is our moral obligation to take urgent action to tackle climate change and to do so in support of those most affected. We call on you to achieve a strong, binding and just global climate agreement to ensure the survival and well-being of all God's children," said the appeal, signed by 15 church leaders from Argentina and four from Nigeria, as well as Cardinals Rodolfo Quezada Toruno of Guatemala and Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong.
Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles, president of Pax Christi USA, and the president of the Commission of the Bishops' Conference of the European Community, Bishop Adrianus van Luyn of Rotterdam, Netherlands, also were among the signers.
U.N. sources said their talks would help prepare a new global climate treaty, to be finalized in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. The treaty will be based on a 2007 plan -- developed in Bali, Indonesia -- under which developing countries agreed to take "nationally appropriate mitigation actions" against climate change if "supported and enabled by technology, finance and capacity-building" from developed countries.
However, they added that funding for mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries would be a crucial prerequisite for an agreement.
In their appeal, the Catholic leaders said every citizen had a responsibility "to promote and to protect the common good," as well as holding "governments to account for their actions." They urged Catholics to follow calls by the late Pope John Paul II by "tackling climate change as one international family."
"Climate change is an issue of social justice and must be met in solidarity by stretching our collective perspective beyond the limitations of short-term interests to one that protects and promotes the common good of all," added the appeal. "It is imperative these countries receive the economic and technical assistance they need to adapt to climate change and ensure better lives and livelihoods for their people."
The president of CIDSE, Rene Grotenhuis, said industrialized countries had been responsible for 70 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions, adding that billions of dollars currently made available to ease financial-market pressures should not obscure the need to address climate change, which, if neglected, would exert a price "on a human and financial scale we cannot yet comprehend."
A CIDSE statement said Catholic member organizations would run public campaigns throughout 2009 encouraging postcards and online petitions urging governments to support a strong deal at the Copenhagen conference.
It added that CIDSE would relay demands to national leaders to ensure the "shared call for climate justice will keep pressure on international leaders at key moments."
©2008 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Pope's take on "climate change"
By Jerry (not verified) on Monday, December 8, 2008The link below gives a long insert from the Pope's urging of scientists not bowing to ideolgical pressue and not jumping to hasty conclusions on climate change.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/12/headline-pope-cond...
Global Warming or Climate Change?
By Jerry (not verified) on Monday, December 8, 2008Do you notice the words "Climate Change" are being replaced for "Global Warming?" Liberals are running from the words "global warming" because the earth has been cooling for the last few years. This fact invalidate the computer models of Global Warming theorists.
"Climate Change" is convenient becuase then every change in the weather can be blamed on man made emissions. Global warming requires for the trend of global warming to continue.
So is man made carbon dioxide emmissions going to cause global catastrophe through global warming or not? If so, stick to "global warming."
http://www.cityviewmag.com/stories-the-greatest-hoax-ever-perpetrated_13...
The issue
Stop the world, I'll melt with you
By Kevin Clarke on Tuesday, December 9, 2008Jerry,
It has been a long-standing view that global warming could cause climate change, the explicit nature of that change will be hard to predict. The terms may have been sloppily conflated in the past but as our understanding of the phenomenon of climate change has evolved, so has the nomenclature. There is nothing intentionally deceptive in that.
You are using the terms as if they are interchangeable. They are not. In fact one of the first times I read anything about this matter of carbon-burning related climate effects was an article perhaps 15 years ago in Harpers detailing a theory, still credible, that global warming could affect the gulf stream such that it makes its turn much farther south than it does today and no longer serves to warm the northern hemisphere, thus leading to a mini ice age, i.e., global warming leads to climate change (under this scenario colder weather for the north). You have cited an article by Simon Caldwell that quite imaginatively editorialized on a World Peace Day statement of Pope Benedict's focused on climate change and our communal responsibilities in responding to it, but Caldwell's interpretation seems completely out of step with what the Pope actually said and what he has repeatedly said on global warming and climate change. (Judge the Vatican by its recent actions in installing solar panels and endorsing a carbon offset to allow the curia to declare itself the world's first carbon-neutral state.) The more recent citation you use above this comment gets directly at that inconsistency in Caldwell's reporting (somewhat ironically since the author is himself a global warming skeptic).
There is broad, study-based acceptance that earth's climate is being changed by human activity. What remains to be studied is the nature of the changes we can expect and how best to respond to them.
Here is more on the most recent science on global warming from Fox News and the original report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You have repeatedly encouraged the "liberals" you frequently assail on this site to be more open-minded. I encourage you to be the same. You might begin by trying to maintain a more neutral tone in your posts, which come off as unpleasant and unnecessarily and unkindly provocative.
Caldwell's article
By Jerry (not verified) on Wednesday, December 10, 2008You are correct, Kevin, Caldwell's article in the Daily Mail did overstep what the pope said. That's why I linked the NewsBusters piece which gave large excerpts of the Pope's message.
Yes, I am skeptical about global warming. I care enough about humanity that we should not throw a bunch of money after a problem that may not exist, which wastes precious resources.
I am old enough to remember the 1970's hysteria about global cooling and the coming ice age promoted in the major media including a cover of Time Magazine. There is a lot of government money to tempt researchers to hype the risk.
I likewise . . .
By Kevin Clarke on Wednesday, December 10, 2008. . . care enough about humanity to be concerned about throwing large sums of money at problems without proper analysis and common good sense, yet that is something we do everyday in support of the vast global enterprise known as oil extraction, transport, and fossil-fuel burning. I wonder why the enormous daily diseconomies of that system are not more properly considered when attempting to map out a more sensible, forward-looking energy policy.
We have grown to accept as normal and efficient somehow an energy delivery system which bogs us down strategically and militarily in a chaotic and violent internecine struggle in the Middle East, a system which demands a costly military presence to protect its trade routes and resource extraction sites thus degrading our ability to invest in our domestic infrastructure and provide basic social services. Tihs same system requires the extinguishing of a finite global resource; we know the burning of this resource has significant and socially costly long-term effects on our children's health and a potentially devastating effect on global climate stability.
How cheap would our fuel be if all these costs were properly internalized into the current energy structure? How many lives have been sacrificed in pursuit of cheap oil and in accepting other purportedly inexpensive forms of energy production? What have been the astounding opportunity costs of our current system? I would likewise worry about "throwing more money" into our existing system, which we pay for in many ways but least of all at the gas pump.
Energy Policy
By Jerry (not verified) on Friday, December 12, 2008Kevin,
You basically hinted at he challenge we face with oil is that OPEC hold a monopoly. They can produce oil cheaply and drive down the price if they so choose bankrupting competitors. Sorry I don't have the exact research here, but Saudi Arabia can produce at $1 per barrel while a competitor drilling hard to obtain oil or oil shale may require sustainable $50 barrel or $100 barrel prices.
The best solution I've heard is to have a tax neutral tax on oil (raise oil tax and reduce payroll tax) See below:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer062003.asp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/gas_tax_puts_money_in_...
Basically, if you tax oil, but return it to consumers by lowering payroll tax, there is no loss for the average consumer. However, people will still look for the best deal out there providing incentives to purchase fuel efficient or fuel alternative vehicles which market forces can find on their own.
Using nuclear power to produce electricity for plug-in hybrids or produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars is a very real possibliity.
The frustration conservatives have with liberals is that liberals settle only for utopian technologies which have yet to be invented at a reasonable cost, such as solar power. Wind power is great, but it kills lots of birds. When a wind farm was suggested in one of the most consistently windy areas, Cape Code, the Kennedys objected since it would spoil their view from their multi-million dollar compound. Nuclear energy works for France and the safety of storage at Yucca Mountain has been thoroughly researched, but most liberals cling to their anti-nuclear stand despite the fact it eliminates carbon emmissions.
What also frustrates conservatives is the fascist ways liberals try to destroy anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Instead of allowing debate, they claim that their is a scientific consensus on man-made global warming from carbon dioxcide leading to worldwide catastrophe theory. The MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen would disagree.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c34061bf-3155-41ea-a90d-42b45e1...
The reckless statements below from the CNS article are completely unsupportable.
"Climate change is a reality today affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions in developing countries by exacerbating storms, droughts and natural disasters,"
"We are deeply concerned by the disproportionate impact human-induced climate change is having on poor and vulnerable people living in developing countries,"
In regards to children's health, I'm all for reducing pollution with a reasonable cost benefit return. However, global warming theory is about carbon dioxide, not pollutants. We enjoy the greatest health in human history which has come from economic gains despite more pollution. As the economy became even more robust, we have been able to reduce pollution signficantly, getting the best of both worlds. For example, air pollution in Los Angeles has been reduced significantly since the 1950 - 1970 era.


